Read Time: 10 minutes

In a recent judgment the Supreme Court has observed that the accused persons' failure to discharge burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not relevant in a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the prosecution is unable to establish a chain of circumstance.                                           

The division bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S Oka while acquitting the accused of charges u/s 302 and 201 of IPC and setting aside the High Court’s order dated April 22, 2019 observed that,

“When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances.”

On a case governed by circumstantial evidence the bench further observed that,

“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, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.”

Factual Matrix

The appellant in the present case wife of one Nagendra Sah died due to burn injuries on November 18, 2011 and based on information furnished by Mahesh Sah, a case of unnatural death was registered.

Later, the cause of death after conducting an autopsy was determined to be , “asphyxia due to pressure around the neck by hand and blunt substance”.

Subsequently, an FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. When the case was committed to the Sessions Court, a charge under Section 201 was also added and thereafter charges under Sections 302 and 201 were framed against the appellant.

He was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 by the trial court and was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs 5,000 for offence u/s 302 and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs 5000 for offence u/s 201.

Both the sentences had to run concurrently and upon default in payment of either fine, the Trial Court directed Sah to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s verdict, Sah had preferred an appeal before the Patna High Court which was dismissed on April 22, 2019. Sah thereafter approached the Top Court assailing the lower court verdicts.            

Contentions of Counsels

The appellant’s counsel submitted that, “none of the witnesses except the official witnesses have supported the prosecution case and that the conviction of the appellant is based solely on the cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report.”

He further relied on the Apex Court judgement in Balaji Gunthu Dhule v State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 685 and contended that except for the post mortem report the lower courts did not rely on any other material for convicting him.

He also contended that a complete chain of events establishing his guilt had not been established since neither the deceased’s mother nor Mahesh Sah had supported the prosecution.

On the contrary the counsel appearing for the State of Bihar submitted that, the appellant's defence that the deceased died due to burn injuries sustained by accidental fire was completely false based on post mortem report.

He further contended that, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied in the case since the deceased and appellant were staying under the same roof and thereafter the burden to explain how the death had occurred was on the appellant.

State’s counsel also contended that the appellant’s failure to discharge the burden on him u/s 106 of the Evidence Act was very crucial and that the case was based on circumstantial evidence.

Taking into account the factual matrix of the present case the bench relied upon the judgement in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ((1984) 4 SCC 116), and observed that it was not only the appellant who was residing in the house where the incident took place but his parents were also present there and ruled that it could not be said that the established facts did not rule out the existence of any other hypothesis.

Next on the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the court observed that,

“Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded 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. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.”

The bench further noted, “The circumstances established by the prosecution do not lead to only one possible inference regarding the guilt of the appellant-accused.”

[Case Title: Nagendra Sah v State of Bihar]

[Law point: S. 106 of Indian Evidence Act]