Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal appeal filed by Ulhas Sudam Gorhe against his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and the deceased, Kavita Sanjay Kamble, were in a live-in relationship and resided together in a chawl in Pune. The prosecution alleged that constant bickering, particularly about the appellant meeting his wife and children, drove him to murder her with an iron hammer on or before 9 February 2015. On that day, neighbours noticed the door latched from outside and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The manager of the chawl lodged the FIR. The appellant was arrested three days later and charged under Section 302 IPC and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial court, after examining 11 prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, holding that since the appellant lived with the deceased, his failure to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act warranted conviction. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court critically examined the evidence and noted that the prosecution had not established any motive, nor had it proved that the appellant was last seen with the deceased or present at the scene around the time of the incident. The court emphasized that Section 106 is not a substitute for the prosecution’s primary burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of any independent incriminating circumstance, the mere fact of cohabitation and the appellant’s silence could not form a complete chain of evidence pointing only to his guilt. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, and acquitted the appellant. He was directed to execute a bail bond under Section 437A CrPC and the fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 - The High Court held that in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance conclusively and the chain must exclude every hypothesis of innocence. The mere failure of the accused to offer an explanation under Section 106, in the absence of any other incriminating evidence such as last seen or motive, cannot sustain a conviction. Held that Section 106 is not a substitute for the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 6-9) B) Criminal Law - Murder - Proof - Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - The High Court acquitted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC as the prosecution failed to adduce evidence of last seen, motive, or presence at the scene at the relevant time. The fact of cohabitation alone, without further circumstances, did not form a complete chain of evidence pointing exclusively to the appellant's guilt. Held that the trial court's reliance on the presumption under Section 106 was misplaced. (Paras 7-8, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the appellant's failure to explain under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, was sufficient to uphold his conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence were quashed and set aside. The appellant was acquitted under Section 302 IPC. Any fine deposited was ordered to be returned. The appellant was directed to execute a bail bond under Section 437A CrPC. The connected criminal application was disposed of.
Law Points
- circumstantial evidence must form complete chain excluding every other hypothesis
- Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not a substitute for prosecution's burden of proof
- failure to offer explanation under Section 106 cannot be used as a circumstance against accused in absence of other evidence
- motive need not be proved if other circumstances conclusive
