Prosecution cannot shift burden of proof to accused by resorting to Section 106 Indian Evidence Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that if the prosecution has failed to prove the basic facts alleged against the accused, the burden of proof cannot then be shifted to the accused by resorting to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act [Satye Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand].A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused."The prosecution having failed to prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused, the burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act," the Court said.The Court also placed reliance on its 1956 judgment in Shambu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer which had held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts within the accused's knowledge. It, therefore, acquitted the husband and mother-in-law accused of murder of the deceased woman.The accused had been charged and held guilty by the Sessions Court and Uttarakhand High Court for offences under Sections 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (criminal act with common intention) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (causing disappearance of evidence of office, or giving false information to screen offender). They were sentenced to life imprisonment.Advocate Shikhil Suri appearing for the accused, argued there was no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. According to him, neither the manner in which the alleged incident had taken place was proved nor the place at which the deceased was allegedly killed and burnt was proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that since the appellants happened to be the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, they were arrested and convicted, merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. He submitted that the case was based on the circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to the alleged incident and the prosecution had failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused.Advocate Krishnam Mishra, appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, submitted that the prosecution had examined the witnesses to prove that there was harassment to the deceased by the accused and on the previous day of the incident too, a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the accused, which had resulted in the deceased Shashi leaving the house.He also pressed into service Section 106 of the Evidence Act, to argue that that there was no explanation given by the accused as to why Shashi left their home the previous day and what the accused did the whole night, when Shashi was not found..The Court at the outset noted that the entire case of the prosecution hinged on circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to the alleged incident."The prosecution in order to prove the charges levelled against the accused had examined 11 witnesses. However, none of witnesses had any knowledge about the alleged incident," the Court noted.On the totality of circumstances and evidence on record, at the most it could be said from the evidence of the parents of the deceased that there was harassment by the accused though no charge under Section 498A (cruelty by husband or his relative) of IPC was framed by the trial court against the accused, the Bench said."It could be further inferred from the evidence on record that the deceased Shashi had left the house on the previous evening of the alleged incident and that she was not found during the whole night, nonetheless such circumstance itself could not be said to be sufficient proof to come to a conclusion that accused had murdered and burnt Shashi as alleged," the judgment stated.The Supreme Court further observed that the investigating officers conducted the whole investigation in a “cursory and shoddy manner”, and after reaching the spot, they did not bother to investigate as to how the incident had taken place. The Bench relied on the judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, and opined that “it is a settled position of law that circumstances how so ever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.”Specifically on the contention of the prosecution regarding Section 106, the Court said that the same was misplaced since the provision is not intended to relieve the prosecution of burden of proof."There being no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the entire chain of circumstances which may compel the court to arrive at the conclusion that the accused only had committed the alleged crime, the court has no hesitation in holding that the Trial Court and the High Court had committed gross error of law in convicting the accused for the alleged crime, merely on the basis of the suspicion, conjectures and surmises," the Court ruled..The Court, therefore, reversed the orders of the courts below and acquitted the accused..[Read Judgment]