Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Ravi, who was convicted for the murder of his first wife Jamni by strangulation. The incident occurred on 22.08.2014 when the appellant, his deceased wife, his second wife Soma, and his two sons were living together in a jhuggi in Rayya Mandi, Amritsar. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, with the sister of the deceased, Rajo, claimed to be an eye-witness. However, all three key witnesses—the brother Chaina Ram, sister Rajo, and cousin Deep Chand—turned hostile and stated that the deceased died due to illness. The remaining evidence consisted of the post-mortem doctor (PW-5) who opined death by asphyxia due to hanging but admitted in cross-examination that ligature marks could be from transport and death could be due to chronic tuberculosis, and the investigating officer (PW-7) who recovered a rope but admitted similar ropes were commonly available. The courts below convicted the appellant relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, arguing the appellant failed to explain the death occurring within his jhuggi. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, as the circumstantial evidence did not satisfy the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The medical evidence was inconclusive, and the rope recovery was not conclusive. The court further noted that the appellant in his Section 313 CrPC statement claimed the deceased died of chronic tuberculosis and was under treatment, which the prosecution did not rebut. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Five Golden Principles - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court reiterated the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra that circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain of evidence. In this case, the circumstantial evidence failed to meet these standards as the medical evidence was inconclusive and the rope recovered was not uniquely linked to the crime. (Paras 18-19) B) Evidence Act - Section 106 - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 - The court held that Section 106 does not shift the initial burden of proof from the prosecution. The prosecution must first establish a prima facie case of guilt before the accused can be called upon to explain circumstances within his knowledge. Since the prosecution failed to discharge this initial burden, Section 106 could not be invoked to support the conviction. (Paras 20-23) C) Criminal Procedure - Section 313 CrPC - Statement of Accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - The appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC stated that the deceased died of natural causes due to chronic tuberculosis and was undergoing treatment. The prosecution failed to rebut this by re-examining the doctor or producing independent evidence, leaving the appellant's version unchallenged. (Paras 24-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when key witnesses turned hostile and medical evidence was inconclusive.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must satisfy five golden principles
- Section 106 Evidence Act does not absolve prosecution of initial burden
- Hostile witness testimony cannot be basis for conviction
- Benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
