Summary
A husband and wife, tenants at Jajpur, were convicted of killing a young jeweller found dead in their kitchen after the landlord reported an intruder attacking them; the deceased was in a relationship with their daughter, had given her Rs. 70,000 and had left home saying he would return with her or his money. Death was by neck compression, with acid poured on the body. The Sessions Court convicted the couple and their daughter under Sections 302/201/34 IPC; the Orissa High Court acquitted the daughter and, finding a strong possibility of grave and sudden provocation, altered the couple's conviction to Section 304 Part II with five years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals: the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances, and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act the onus shifted to the only persons in the house to explain how the deceased died.
Issues
- Whether, in a case resting on circumstantial evidence of a homicide inside the accused's house, the prosecution had established a chain of events sufficient to shift the onus to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to explain how the deceased met his death.
- Whether reliance on Section 106 impermissibly relieves the prosecution of its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Section 106 does not exonerate the prosecution from its burden but applies once the prosecution has established a chain of events from which a reasonable inference arises against the accused; where a homicide occurs in secrecy inside a house the inmates must give a cogent explanation (Trimukh Maroti Kirkan; Ashok v. State of Maharashtra). Since only the appellants were inside when the deceased died, the onus was on them to disclose how he lost his life, and they offered no credible defence. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26)
- Sections 304 Part II, 201 and 34 (conviction under Section 302 altered by the High Court), Indian Penal Code, 1860The High Court's finding that the appellants overpowered and throttled the unarmed deceased and poured acid on him, but acted under a strong possibility of grave and sudden provocation, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II with five years' rigorous imprisonment, was upheld. (¶¶ 7, 20, 26)
Held
- Section 106 of the Evidence Act places on an individual the burden of proving facts especially within his knowledge; it does not relieve the prosecution of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt but operates where the chain of events established by the prosecution gives rise to a reasonable inference against the accused. In a circumstantial case, an evasive or untrue answer to an incriminating question itself becomes an additional link in the chain. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The landlord's evidence (PW9) showed that the police entered immediately after the couple were rescued through the inter-connected door while the deceased remained inside, so only the appellants were present when he died; the plea that the gathered crowd assaulted the deceased and destroyed his face was rightly rejected for want of any material. The deceased's sister, friend and cousin (PW12, PW7, PW8) established the relationship with the daughter, the Rs. 70,000 given to her and the deceased's declaration before leaving home, spelling out motive and falsifying the claim that he was unknown to the appellants, which their daughter's own deposition contradicted; the medical evidence (PW6) proved homicidal asphyxia by compression of the neck with assault by two or more persons. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- The prosecution having established intention and the chain of circumstances, the onus shifted under Section 106 to the appellants to disclose how the deceased lost his life; the entire sequence of events pointed to their guilt and they offered no credible defence, so the High Court's judgment called for no interference. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the Orissa High Court judgment of 08.11.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2015 convicting the appellants under Sections 304 Part II and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to five years' rigorous imprisonment affirmed; bail bonds cancelled and the appellants directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.