S. 106 Evidence Act | Unless Prosecution Proves Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Burden Of Proof Can't Be Shifted To Accused: Jharkhand High Court

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court overturned the judgement of a trial court in a murder case, emphasizing the necessity for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that unless the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof cannot be shifted onto the accused, as stipulated under section 106 of the Evidence Act.

The division bench Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen underscored, “Unless and until, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt its case, the burden of proof upon the accused under section 106 of Evidence Act cannot be shifted. Herein from the prosecution evidence, the presence of the appellant prior or on the fateful night of the homicidal death of wife of appellant in his tenanted room being not proved, the burden of proof under section 106 of Evidence Act cannot be shift upon the appellant-convict.”

“The learned trial court had based the conviction of the appellant on the sole ground that appellant-convict has not given the explanation of the homicidal death of his wife in the tenanted room. But the learned trial court did not record any finding in regard to the presence of the appellant on the date of occurrence or prior to date of occurrence. The finding recorded by the trial court in regard to the presence of the appellant is not based on the prosecution evidence rather same is based on the surmises and conjectures which is found perverse.”

The above ruling came in an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII, Ranchi in a Sessions Trial, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

On December 6th, 2011, Anil Khakha, the informant, provided written information alleging that Bablu Tirkey had been residing as a tenant in his house for the past 15-16 years.

Later that day, Bablu Tirkey left the house, claiming he needed to answer nature's call. Concern arose when his wife, Dasmi Baitha, failed to emerge from the house. Subsequently, locals accompanied Khakha to Tirkey's room, where they discovered Baitha deceased, bearing injuries to her face, temple, and various other parts of her body.

Tirkey had previously informed Khakha on December 5th, 2011, that his wife had left after a quarrel. However, it became apparent that Tirkey may have committed the murder the previous night. Notably, on the same day of the incident, Tirkey was seen with his wife inside their home with the door closed, only to leave the house in the morning following the alleged murder.

The Court in its ruling observed that in the case in hand which was based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of the events had not been successfully established by the prosecution evidence and the trial court has wrongly shifted the burden of proof upon the appellant-convict to explain how the homicidal death of his wife was caused in his tenanted room without proving of his presence at the place of occurrence before or on the date of occurrence.

The Court further observed, “Only on the basis of the strong suspicion, the FIR of this case was lodged on the ground that there was usual quarrel between the appellant Bablu Tirkey and his wife decease Dasmi Baitha on the issue of demand of money to drink wine or other trivial issues and the appellant-convict who was not seen at his tenanted house wherein he had been residing along with his wife for three days back, it arose the doubt in the mind of the informant and other persons of the locality who went to the tenanted room and found the dead body of Dasmi Baitha bearing multiple injuries.”

As such, the Court asserted that there was only suspicion, but there was no cogent evidence in regard to the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence on or before the date of occurrence and even nothing incriminating article was recovered from the place of occurrence.

The Court opined, “The chain of the circumstances as the case is based on circumstantial evidence is not found complete. The suspicion, however, strong may be cannot take the place of proof.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court.

Case Title: Bablu Tirkey vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 76

Click Here To Read The Judgement