Section 106 Evidence Act Not Attracted Unless Prosecution Prima Facie Discharges Initial Burden Of Establishing Guilt Of Accused: Allahabad HC

The bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed thus while allowing the appeal filed by one Guddu Verma who was convicted by the trial court in 2016 for (allegedly) killing his wife in April 1998.

The Court noted that the initial burden of proving the facts that the accused-appellant had committed the murder of his wife was not discharged by the prosecution and hence, the conviction of the accused based on Section 106 of the Evidence Act was liable to be set aside.

In this regard, the Court also referred to the Apex Court’s ruling in the case of Nagendra Sah Vs. the State of Bihar LL 2021 SC 457 wherein it was held in a given case, if the chain of circumstances that are required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all.

The court also relied upon Top Court’s ruling in the case of Sabitri Samantaray vs State of Odisha 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 503 wherein it was held that Section 106 applies to cases where the chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused.

For context, Section 106 of the Evidence Act postulates that the burden of proving things that are within an individual's special knowledge, is on that individual.

It may be noted that this provision, in no way, exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution.

The case before the Court

The appellant-Guddu Verma had been accused of committing the murder of his wife (Sangeeta) on the night of 12/13.04.1998 in connivance with Smt. Partapi Devi (who died during the trial), by causing injuries to her in their house in fulfilment of their common intention.

It was also alleged that in order to avoid the crime of murder, they tried to make the said murder, projected to be a case of suicide by getting a rope tied around her neck.

The trial court, in its Judgment, noted that the murder of the deceased has taken place in the house of the accused, and the accused were unable to disclose the exact cause and manner in which the deceased could commit suicide as the burden of explanation was upon them as per Section 106 Evidence Act, and hence, it concluded that not saying anything about the same indicated that the deceased was killed by them only.

The arguments before the High Court

Challenging the findings of the Trial Court, the Appellant Guddu Verma moved to the High Court wherein it was contended by his counsel that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence in which the accused-appellant had been implicated only on the basis of suspicion and no evidence exists to hold him guilty.

On the other hand, the counsel for the state argued that there was clinching evidence to support the prosecution’s case.

The Government Advocate also submitted that since the incident occurred in the house of the accused person, he had to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as to under which circumstances the deceased died, which he failed to discharge and hence, the finding of conviction was rightly returned by the Trial Court.

High Court’s Observations and findings

Having examined the facts of the case, the evidence adduced by the witnesses, and the arguments advanced by the counsels, the Court observed that it was a case of circumstantial evidence, as all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses and no one had seen the incident with his/her own eyes.

The Court further noted that the prosecution heavily relied upon the motive of the accused, which is considered to be a weak and unreliable piece of evidence, and otherwise also, the Court added, the chain of events in the case which is required to be completed by the prosecution, was left incomplete in the case.

Regarding the medical evidence adduced in the case, the Court noted that though the death of the deceased was homicidal as she had received caused injuries on her head and face, the accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of the testimony of interested and hearsay witnesses and also on the basis of an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence as no one had seen that the accused-appellant and his mother (died) had killed the deceased and to hide the crime, they hanged her on a bamboo stick by tying rope around her neck.

The Court added that it was the duty of the Investigating Agency to find out the culprit who has committed the offence of murder of the deceased.

So far as the inference drawn by the trial court against the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court categorically said that the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act had no application to the facts of the instant case because the initial burden of proving the facts that accused-appellant had committed the murder of his wife was not discharged by the prosecution.

In view of this, holding that the prosecution had completely failed to discharge its initial burden in proving the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the Judgment and order of conviction and ordered for the release of the accused, who is in jail since 13th April 2016.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Manu Sharma, Prem Sagar Gupta

Counsel for Respondent: GA NK Sharma

Case title - Guddu Verma vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2207 of 2016]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 165

Click Here To Read/Download Order/Judgment