Summary
The convictions for killing a man whose body was concealed beneath the floor of the appellants’ rented rooms were upheld. The prosecution proved the tenancy, continued locked possession and recovery of the body. Those foundational facts required an explanation of possible outside access under section 106, which was not offered. The wife’s disclosure-led recovery and extra-judicial confession further implicated her. Identity was proved by other evidence despite absence of DNA testing.
Issues
- Whether the proved possession and concealed-body recovery justified reliance on facts especially within the accused persons’ knowledge.
- Whether lack of DNA testing or examination of the FIR translator undermined the case.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Applied after foundational evidence established the rented premises and exclusive locked possession; required explanation of asserted outside access without displacing the prosecution’s general burden. (¶ 13–21)
Held
- Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of proving guilt. It addresses exceptional facts especially within the accused’s knowledge that would be disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish. (¶ 14–20)
- The body was concealed below wooden planks, mud and stones in premises rented by Ranjit Haldar and locked before his departure. The tenancy and absence of intervening access were unchallenged; no explanation or suggestion of outside access was offered. Liability did not depend solely on whose disclosure led to recovery. (¶ 21)
- Mamta Mohanta’s disclosure led to the concealed body in the rooms where she had lived, and her extra-judicial confession was independently supported by witnesses. Those circumstances sustained the case against her. (¶ 22)
- The deceased was identified through the disclosure, clothing and personal articles, and witnesses were not challenged on identity. DNA testing was not essential on this record. The unexamined FIR translator did not impair the independent investigation and proved evidence. (¶ 23–24)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences left undisturbed.