Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted a son convicted under Section 302 IPC of murdering his mother on circumstantial evidence. The medical evidence left hanging open and did not establish homicide, the investigating officer's own evidence showed the appellant lived separately so Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be invoked, the recovery evidence was unreliable and had already been rejected against the acquitted co-accused, the motive rested on an interested uncle, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased died a homicidal death.
- Whether the appellant could be called upon under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the death on the footing that he lived with the deceased.
- Whether the recoveries, the alleged motive and the appellant's subsequent conduct completed the chain of circumstantial evidence against him.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Section 106 places on a person the burden of proving a fact especially within his knowledge, but does not relieve the prosecution of its burden. Since the investigating officer deposed that the appellant resided in another person's house, it could not be held that he lived with the deceased or was with her when she died, so no fact was shown to be especially within his knowledge and the principle of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan did not apply. (¶¶ 38, 39, 42, 43)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The courts below relied on recoveries of an iron pipe and clothes at the appellant's instance. The panch witness was hostile, contradicted himself and the investigating officer, was close to the complainant uncle, and the doctor said the pipe could not have caused the sharp-edged scalp injury; the recovery was rejected as a link in the chain. (¶¶ 5.5, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49)
- Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The prosecution relied on the appellant's failure to raise a hue and cry and the alleged hurried cremation as subsequent conduct. The Court found the account of the first attempted cremation unconvincing, with no evidence that the appellant was present there, and noted that he took part in the later cremation and informed his uncle of the death, which was natural conduct. (¶¶ 5.4, 38, 54, 55)
Held
- A conviction on circumstantial evidence requires the five conditions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda: the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclusive of every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain. These were not satisfied, and the courts below erred in convicting the appellant. (¶¶ 25, 56)
- Where the autopsy doctor admitted that the absence of a ligature mark at the back of the neck is consistent with hanging and that in strangulation the mark should encircle the neck, there was no definite medical opinion and suicide could not be ruled out, so homicide was not safely established. (¶¶ 31, 32, 34)
- A document produced by the prosecution with the chargesheet, though not exhibited, may be relied on by the defence; the hospital certificate showing that the deceased had been treated for schizophrenia, collected by the investigating officer, therefore added to the doubt. (¶¶ 33, 35)
- Section 106 of the Evidence Act is meant for exceptional cases where facts are pre-eminently within the accused's knowledge; it does not shift the prosecution's burden. With the investigating officer's evidence that the appellant lived elsewhere, no burden to explain the death arose. (¶¶ 38, 41, 42, 43)
- Recovery evidence from a self-contradictory panch witness linked to an interested relative, already found non-incriminating when the co-accused was acquitted on the same evidence (an acquittal the State accepted), cannot be a link in the chain. The FSL report had not been put to the appellant under Section 313 and the deceased's blood group had not been analysed. (¶¶ 37, 46, 48, 49)
- The motive of acquiring the mother's property rested on the uncle, who had his own property dispute with the family and whose statement was recorded about 50 days after the death without explanation. Motive was not established, especially as the appellant's father and two sisters were alive. (¶¶ 50, 51, 52, 53)
- The unexplained failure to investigate who organised the first attempted cremation, or to trace the anonymous caller or anyone in the crowd, left the genesis of the prosecution case in doubt. (¶¶ 26, 28, 29, 55)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment set aside and the appellant acquitted of all charges; bail bonds discharged.