Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that a presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked against the accused when the prosecution fails to establish the chain of circumstances in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

"The prosecution can invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act when it succeeds in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.

The court explained that the law on this aspect is very clear.

"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, the falsity of his defence is no ground to hold the accused guilty," the bench said.

The court acquitted Sheikh Wahid Sheikh Hamid of the charges of burning his wife, Sabina Begum to death under Section 302 of the IPC.

The apex court set aside the findings of the trial court as well as the Bombay High Court, hearing the appeal.

The prosecution alleged that the accused and his mother had poured kerosene oil on the victim and set her ablaze.

The bench, however, said that the prosecution had failed to prove that the articles which were sent to the Chemical Analyser, were seized from the spot. Moreover, the spot panchnama was not proved which was apart from the failure of the prosecution to explain 17% burns sustained by the appellant himself that required hospitalisation for more than three weeks.

"Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt and hence, the appellant is entitled to acquittal," it said.

In its order, the bench noted that the trial court and the High Court lent much credence to the post-mortem report which recorded that the deceased had sustained 97% burn injuries; and that the clothes on the body of the deceased were having the smell of kerosene-like substance. 

It said that much emphasis was laid by both the courts below on the report of Chemical Analyser.

What was sent to the Chemical Analyser was a paper box containing pieces of clothes of the deceased Sabina, which were lying at the spot of occurrence and one red can having lid and containing kerosene. Admittedly, seizure panchnama showing the seizure of these articles was not placed on record, the court pointed out.

"Even assuming that the report of the Chemical Analyser was admitted in the evidence by consent of the accused, it is of no significance at all unless the prosecution proves that there was a lawful seizure of the articles which were sent to the Chemical Analyser. In this case, the said evidence is admittedly absent. In the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not put to the accused that the clothes and can were seized," it said.

The bench further said that the prosecution could have drawn support from the spot panchnama to show that the articles, which were seized, were lying at the spot. "However, the finding of the High Court is that even spot panchnama has not been proved," court pointed out.

Court also said that the appellant admittedly remained in hospital as an indoor patient from the date of incident of March 1, 2003 till March 25, 2003. 

"The prosecution has not explained the burn injuries sustained by the appellant, which led to his hospitalisation for more than three weeks. Only on the basis of surmises and conjectures that the Courts have come to the conclusion that the burn injuries must have been caused to the appellant while setting his wife ablaze. The doctor who treated the appellant has not been examined who could have given his opinion about the manner in which the burn injuries could have been caused," the bench said.

Case Title: SHEIKH WAHID SHEIKH HAMID VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA