Summary
The Court set aside the High Court’s reversal of an acquittal in a circumstantial murder case. The prosecution had not reliably established that the deceased was last seen with the appellant; the long interval before recovery of the body and absence of corroboration left the chain incomplete. Section 106 could not cure that failure.
Issues
- Whether an unproved last-seen circumstance and absence of an explanation could sustain conviction.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal on this evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872An explanatory burden concerning special knowledge could arise only after the prosecution proved the foundational last-seen facts; it could not substitute for proof of guilt. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- The discrepancy between the charge and the witnesses’ accounts as to who took the deceased away, together with the surrounding conduct and evidence of cordial relations, created material doubt about the alleged last-seen circumstance. (¶ 13)
- The prosecution must establish the foundational facts before relying on Section 106. Last seen together does not necessarily establish murder, and an accused’s failure to explain cannot by itself prove guilt. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- With no definitive last-seen evidence, a long interval before the body was recovered and no corroborative circumstances, the chain did not exclude other hypotheses. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶ 17)
- An appellate court reviewing acquittal must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence and prefer the view favouring the accused where two views are possible. This also made the High Court’s reversal untenable. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court’s conviction and sentence set aside; appellant discharged from liability under his bail bonds.