Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Civil Line, District
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.25 10:48:09 +0530 2025:CGHC:27196-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1081 of 2024 Prahlad Yadav S/o Latel Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Farhada, P.S. Kharora, Present R/o New Basti, Rajatalab, House Of Jubeda, P.S. Civil Line, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Civil Line, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent / State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 2 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.01.2024 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Session Case No. 97/2020 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine amount of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused Prahlad Yadav was married to the deceased Tarabai alias Pinky. They have a two and a half year old son Vedkumar. The accused used to work as a labourer in the city and his wife Tarabai alias Pinky used to work as a maid in the locality. His wife used to talk a lot on the phone and they often quarreled over this issue. He suspected that his wife was having an affair with someone else. On the night of the incident dated 13.12.2019, they were arguing about their relationship till late at night and a quarrel broke out between them. The accused picked up a small LPG cylinder and hit his wife Tarabai alias Pinky on her head three-four times, due to which, blood started oozing out of her head and she died. He himself went to the police station and lodged a report. On the said report, a crime was registered and the case was taken into investigation. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. A purple colour cover with white print, two pieces of broken bangle, pillow, one piece of bazaaru earring, 05 litre gas cylinder, one piece of knife were seized from the crime 3 scene as per the seizure sheet. Post-mortem of the deceased's body was conducted, the seized gas cylinder and knife were interrogated by a doctor. The seized items and viscera were deposited in FSL Raipur for examination. 4. After completing other proceedings of investigation, the charge- sheet was presented for trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh on 09.03.2020, after which the case was handed over to the Sessions Court, Raipur, District, Chhattisgarh on 13.03.2020, after which this Sessions Case No. 97/2020 was registered. 5. The accused was read out the charge under Section 302 IPC, which he denied. A total of 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, thereafter the accused was examined under Section 313 (1) (b) CrPC. On this the accused declared himself to be innocent and that he had been falsely implicated and expressed his desire to give defence evidence in his defence. 6. On behalf of the defence, statement of defence witness Ramshila Yadav (DW-01) was recorded but no document was presented in her defence. 7.
Facts
The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record opining that it is the appellant who has committed the murder of his wife, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the IPC, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 8.
Legal Reasoning
conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused. Their Lordships also held that the burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused, which may absolve him from criminal liability, certain lies upon him. 26. The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) has been followed with approval by their Lordships in the matter of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar4 and it has been held that burden of proving the case against the accused was on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused has made out a specific defence. 3 AIR 1956 SC 460 4 AIR 1974 SC 778 15 27. In the present case, homicidal death due to excessive bleeding and shock caused by injuries on the head and face with hard and blunt object and the nature of death being homicidal has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Dr. Shivnanayan Manjhi (PW/12) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/27A) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 28. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, as in this case there is no eyewitness regarding the murder of deceased Tarabai alias Pinky Yadav, the case remains based on circumstantial evidence. It is well established that, when a conviction is sought on the basis of circumstantial evidence in a heinous crime like murder, then the prosecution is bound to prove those circumstances by logical and irrefutable evidence. 29. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 30. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must 16 be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 31. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 32. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been 17 fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 33. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 34. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; 18 (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 35. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the 19 courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 36. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 37. In the light of these guiding principles, we will have to examine the present case. 38. In this regard, prosecution witness Deputy Superintendent of 20 Police Sushanto Banerjee (PW-10) has stated in his main examination that on 13.12.2019 itself, a purple coloured mattress cover, pieces of catechu coloured bangle from the right hand of the deceased, blood stained pillow lying near the head of the deceased and one earring of the deceased were seized from the scene of incident in the presence of witnesses Babar Khan and Khugesh Sahu. The seizure memo is Ex.P-7. On 13.12.2019 itself, on the production of accused Prahlad Yadav, a gas tank cylinder of 5 liters, which had blood-like stains and a vegetable cutting knife were seized, the seizure memo is Ex.P-8. On the said date itself, when Assistant Sub-Inspector Shiv Kumar Sahu brought him to the police station and presented him, three sealed boxes given by the doctor were seized, one of which contained the deceased's stomach, small intestine and their contents, the second box contained the deceased's viscera and the third box contained salt solution. The seizure memo is Ex.P-14. When Assistant Sub-Inspector Shiv Kumar Sahu brought him to the police station and presented him, a sealed packet given by the doctor which contained the deceased's clothes was written, another sealed packet which had 'Blood soaked gauze' and the third sealed packet which contained nail pieces for DNA test was seized. The seizure memo is Ex.P-15. 39. Anisa Fatima (PW-1) has stated in her main examination that she saw Pinky Yadav at 1 o'clock in the night on the date of the 21 incident, who was going to the bathroom with her husband accused Prahlad. Next day between 7-8 o'clock in the morning, it was known that Pinky had been murdered and the police had come. She also came to know that her husband had killed Pinky by hitting her with a cylinder. The police came to the spot and made enquiries. She went to the spot and saw Pinky's body, the body was covered with a sheet. The cylinder was kept on the side and the room was completely covered with blood and the accused was not present there. In cross-examination, this witness has also clearly accepted that there used to be arguments between the accused and his wife Pinky even before the incident. This witness has clearly stated in her own statement that there was blood on appellant’s shirt. 40. Laxman Yadav (PW-2), who is father of the deceased has deposed that he went to his daughter's house with the police and saw that his daughter was lying down and had injuries on her head. His daughter had been hit with a gas cylinder. 41. Alfisa (PW-5) has stated that she had gone to the scene of the incident. After some time, the police brought Prahlad Yadav and she told that Prahlad Yadav surrendered at the police station and told that he had killed his wife Pinky. Then she saw that there were blood stains on Prahlad Yadav's clothes. After investigating the crime scene, the police seized some items and then took Prahlad Yadav away. When she went to the crime scene, Pinky Yadav's body was lying on the ground, it was covered with a 22 sheet. A cylinder was lying nearby and blood stains were visible on the wall. 42. Pramila Yadav (PW-6) who has said that the deceased was her sister-in-law has not supported the prosecution, but this witness has accepted that she had heard that Prahlad Yadav doubted Tarabai's character and that is why Prahlad killed Tarabai. This witness has voluntarily said that the deceased had told her about the doubt on her character. 43. Santoshi Yadav (PW-7) who has said that the deceased is her sister has accepted the prosecution's suggestion in paragraph 6 of her examination that she was informed by her father Laxman Yadav over phone that her sister Tarabai Yadav alias Pinky Yadav has been murdered by her husband Prahlad Yadav by hitting her with a gas cylinder and a knife. This witness has also accepted the prosecution's suggestion that her father Laxman Yadav told her on meeting her that if she goes to Tarabai's rented house in Rajatalab Raipur and check, she will find gas cylinder on Tarabai's face and head and accused killed her by stabbing her with a knife. due to which, the body was lying soaked in blood and her head was flattened and the knife marks were visible near the neck and the gas cylinder and knife were lying near the body. Her father Laxman Yadav questioned the accused Prahlad Yadav as to why he killed Tarabai alias Pinky Yadav, then Prahlad Yadav told that his wife Tarabai used to talk to other people on phone for many 23 days, due to which he suspected her. The above statement of this witness remained intact in cross-examination. 44. The statements of all the above witnesses confirm that on the date of the incident, the accused killed the deceased Tarabai alias Pinky Yadav by doubting her character and hitting her on the head with a small cylinder kept in the kitchen. In the above circumstances, as per the above, this makes the chain of circumstantial evidence credible - that on the date of the incident, the accused killed the deceased by doubting her character and hitting her on the head with a small cylinder kept in the kitchen, which adds a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence in favor of the prosecution. No reasonable and coherent explanation has been offered by the accused. 45. Therefore, on the basis of the above evidence on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the trial Court has rightly held through circumstantial evidence that on the date of the incident, the accused, suspecting the character of the deceased Tarabai alias Pinky Yadav, intentionally and knowingly killed her by hitting her on the head with a small cylinder kept in the kitchen, which falls in the category of culpable homicide. 46. Considering the aforesaid evidence of the witnesses as well as the circumstances and further the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found at her home and deceased and accused/appellant were living together amply shows the incident of murder and thus, the incriminating circumstances proves the 24 involvement of accused/appellant and the accused/appellant has not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and in his memorandum statement, the accused/appellant has also admitted that he has murdered his wife. Also, from the statements of Anisa Fatima (PW-1), Laxman Yadav (PW-2), Alfisa (PW-5), Pramila Yadav (PW-6) and Santoshi Yadav (PW-7), it has come to knowledge that the accused often used to quarrel as he doubted Tarabai's character. Also, Dr. Shivnanayan Manjhi (PW-12), who has conducted the postmortem has opined that the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding and shock caused by injuries on the head and face by hard and blunt object and the nature of death is homicidal which amply reveal that such an incident of murder had taken place. Thus, there is unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidences against the accused / appellant, which clearly indicate the guilt of accused/appellant and the circumstances clearly indicate that it was the appellant alone who had committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 47.
Arguments
Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant argued that 4 conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the circumstantial evidence, without there being any eye witness, though the chain of circumstances are missing and not completed to each other. He further submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is illegal & contrary to law and hence liable to be set-aside. The Appellant has been falsely trapped in the present case based on the balled and bare suspicion. As per the materials available on record, it appears that there was cordial relationship between the appellant and deceased. Not a single iota of evidence available on record to show that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife. Further, as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case, it appears that who has committed the murder of deceased is not proved. Due explanation has been given by the appellant in his 313 statement which has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. Further, the seizure and the memorandum witnesses have turned hostile. Thus looking to the entire evidence available on record, there is not a single iota of evidence to show that the appellant had committed murder or involved in this crime. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellant for commission of heinous offence of murder, therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the statement of the prosecution witnesses clearly proved that, 5 the deceased had been murdered by the accused/present appellant, as it has also been observed by the learned trial Court that, as per the postmortem report, (PW/27A) Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW- 12)/Medical OfÏcer has clearly opined that, the deceased died due to excessive bleeding and shock caused by injuries on the head and face, the injuries on the head and face were hard and blunt and were caused by a heavy object and the nature of death was homicidal in nature. The learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence available on record including the deposition of witnesses and thereafter, arrived at the finding of guilt of the appellant, which is supported by the credible and cogent evidences, as the learned trial Court has specifically observed that, from the medical evidence and FSL report, it is clearly proved the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. Thus, looking to the gravity of the offence and the quality of the evidences, there is no reason for showing any leniency to the present appellant, thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 11. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 6 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased to be homicidal in nature ? 13. In this regard, Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-12)/Medical OfÏcer has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 13.12.19 at 4.30 p.m., the body of the deceased Tara Bai alias Pinky, wife of Prahlad Yadav, age 25 years was brought for postmortem along with the application by lady police constable Vinamrata Kurre No. 2277 of Civil Line Police Station Raipur. The body was identified by Latel Yadav, Ravi Yadav and lady constable Vinamrata Kurre No. 2277. In the postmortem, she found that the body was of a normal heighted woman, who was wearing a red kurti and red pyjama, there was a clean cut mark on the clothes in the opposite direction of the injury. There were bangles on both the hands. There was postmortem stiffness on all the body parts. Hypostasis was present in the frozen state on the back parts of the body, the right hand was kept on the stomach, both the eyes were closed, the pupils of the eyes had become blurred. The mouth was closed, the lips were joined to each other. There were blood stains on both the hands of the deceased, the face and head were sunken from both sides. There were blood stains on the clothes. Blood was oozing out from both the ears and nose. 14. Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-12) has stated that the deceased had the following injuries:- External Testing:- 7 1. Torn wound There was a horizontal wound measuring 10 x 6 cm on the left forehead and temple, which was deep to the bone. On opening the skin of the head, the frontal and temporal bone of the skull was broken. There was redness around the injury. The broken part of the bone was 15 The fracture was 12 cm long and extended from front to back. Below the fractured part, the brain was torn in many places and there was a lot of bleeding in the brain. Some parts of the brain were protruding out from the torn part. 2. A lacerated wound measuring 7 x 3 cm deep up to the bone was present behind the left ear. 3. There was redness due to the injury and a blood clot had formed under the dorsal skin of the head. The occipital bone was broken under the skin and the brain was ruptured under the fractured part. 4. Contusion: A wound measuring 3 x 2 cm was present on the palm of the right hand above the thumb and a horizontal wound measuring 4 x 2 cm was present below the little finger. 5. Cut wound: There was a deep wound measuring 11 x 0.1 inches transverse to the skin on the left side of dorsum of neck. 6. Incised wound: A transverse wound measuring 10.5 x 0.1 cm was present just below injury no.5. 7. Stab wounds: There were eight wounds on the right thigh, 8 ranging in size from 2 x 0.5 to 1.5 cm and up to 2 cm deep. There was yellowness around the wounds, which were mostly present on the front and middle part of the thigh. Both the edges of the wounds were cleanly cut. 8. Stab wounds: There were 14 wounds on the right side of the abdomen, measuring 2 x 2.5 inches deep. These wounds were mostly spread on the right hypochondrium (right side of the abdomen below the ribs to the bone below the hip). Injury number 1 to 4 were antemortem and were caused by a hard and blunt object, which was sufÏcient to cause death in the normal course of nature. Injury number 5 to 8 were postmortem and were caused by a hard and sharp weapon. Internal Testing:- The skull, except for the injuries present in the cervix, all other parts were intact. The brain was torn at several places. The membrane and ribs in the thoracic region were soft and intact. Both the lungs were intact with a yellow tinge. Blood was present in the throat and trachea. All the parts of the heart were empty. About 100 grams of half-digested food was present in the food sac. Food was present in the small intestine and faecal matter was present in the large intestine. The liver, spleen, kidneys were intact with a yellow tinge. The urinary bladder was empty. The internal and external genitals were intact. 15. Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-12) further stated that the clothes worn 9 by the deceased were safe. He had advised for chemical test. He had preserved the blood of the deceased in a gauze piece and advised for blood grouping and chemical test. The nails were preserved in a packet for DNA testing of the accused. The viscera of the deceased was preserved and chemical testing was advised. All of them were sealed separately and handed over to the concerned police constable along with the sealed samples. This medical witness has given his opinion that the deceased died due to excessive bleeding and shock caused by injuries on the head and face. The injuries on the head and face were hard and blunt and were caused by a heavy object. The wounds were inflicted before death. 16. Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-12) further stated that the stab wound was caused by a hard and sharp weapon, which was after death. The death was homicidal in nature. The injuries present on the body of the deceased were caused within 12 hours of death. The post- mortem examination of the deceased was done within 24 hours of her death. The post-mortem report given by him as Exhibit P-27. 17. Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-12) further stated that on 03.03.2020, a memorandum was received from the station in-charge, Civil Line Raipur regarding the query report (Ex.P-28) of the seized gas cylinder and knife in Crime No. 692/19, section 302 IPC, which is Exhibit P-17. In which, it was asked whether the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the seized object, to which, she answered that the injuries sustained by the deceased are 10 possible. 18. On the basis of the above circumstances and the above evidence analysis, the trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-12), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased, vide Ex.P/27, has clearly come to the conclusion that the deceased died due to excessive bleeding and shock caused by injuries on the head and face. The injuries on the head and face were hard and blunt and were caused by a heavy object and the nature of death is homicidal. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby afÏrm the said finding. 19. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P/27) of Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-12), who conducted postmortem. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he 11 failed to explain. 20. The question for consideration would be, whether Section 106 of the Evidence Act would be applicable or not? 21. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: - “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 22. This provision states that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 101, namely, that the burden is on the person who asserts a fact. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the other side. To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by prosecution is that the accused persons were in such a position that they could have special knowledge of the fact concerned. 23. In the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 of the Evidence Act is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain 1 AIR 1956 SC 404 12 exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difÏcult, for the prosecution, to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difÏculty or inconvenience. The Supreme Court while considering the word “especially” employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under: - “11. … The word "especially" stresses that it means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. The King, 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R. 1936-3 ER 36 AT P.49 (B).” Their Lordships further held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the 13 prosecution and never shifts. 24. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval recently in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar2 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: - “22. Thus, 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. 23. 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. In a case governed by 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 2 (2021) 10 SCC 725 14 not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 25. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab3, while considering the provisions contained in Sections 103 & 106 of the Evidence Act, held that the burden of proving a plea specially set up by an accused which may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him, but neither the application of Section 103 nor that of 106 could, however, absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held by their Lordships that it is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 48. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 13.12.2019, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 25 49. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet