Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of her husband’s murder because the circumstantial chain did not exclude innocence. Contradictory testimony, the mismatch between injuries and the alleged weapon, investigative omissions and failure to consider her plausible defence created reasonable doubt. Last-seen evidence could not shift the burden without the prosecution’s necessary foundation. Her absence of tears did not prove guilt. Release was ordered unless she was wanted in another case.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence excluded a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
- Whether last-seen circumstances shifted the burden under Section 106.
- Whether failure to consider the Section 313 defence prejudiced the accused.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Mere invocation of last-seen circumstances could not shift the burden before the prosecution established the necessary prima facie case; an incomplete circumstantial chain could not be cured by demanding an explanation. (¶ 8)
- Section 313(1)(b) and (4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The courts had a duty to consider the accused’s explanation and accept or reject it with written reasons. Entirely overlooking the plausible defence prejudiced the appellant here. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
Held
- The prosecution had to establish a continuous chain inconsistent with innocence. Last-seen reasoning alone could not replace that foundation or automatically shift the burden to the accused. (¶ 8)
- Contradictions about the injury, timing and surrounding events, inconsistency between the alleged knife and the serious chop injuries, and unexplained forensic omissions left material gaps. Absence of tears was not a sufficient inference of guilt. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The Section 313 explanation was relevant and plausible in the overall evidence. Neither court had considered it, causing prejudice. The defence did not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- The circumstances did not exclude another manner of occurrence. Benefit of doubt required acquittal and immediate release unless wanted in another case. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt and ordered released forthwith unless wanted in another case.