Why Supreme Court acquitted man convicted for strangulating wife

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted for strangulating his wife with a rope in 2014 in Punjab's Amritsar [Ravi vs State of Punjab]..The Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah ordered immediate release of the appellant Ravi after over ten years of custody.The Court found that the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, had indicated that asphyxia, stated to be the cause of victim's death, can be caused by chronic tuberculosis also."Therefore, his evidence does not conclusively establish the cause of the death," the Bench said.Further, the Court noted that the Inspector, who conduced the investigation had admitted that ropes similar to the one allegedly used in the case, were easily available in the market. Nothing much turns upon his evidence as well, it said..Interestingly, Punjab government had contended that in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was for the accused to have explained the circumstances under which the victim died as the crime had occurred within the four corners of a house i.e. jhuggi. Section 106 of the Evidence Act states that, "when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."The Court in this regard reiterated that initial burden is upon the prosecution to first prima facie establish the guilt of the accused and then only the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the circumstances as contemplated by Section 106 of the Evidence Act..It referred in detail to a ruling delivered by the Supreme Court last year in Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT. The top court in the 2024 ruling had said that the courts should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution."The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials and places the onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, does not, in any way, stand modified by the provisions contained under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The said provision cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce the evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The said provision cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all elements necessary to establish the offence," the Court had said in that ruling.In other words, the prosecution does not stand absolved from its initial liability to prove the offence, the Bench headed by Justice Mithal explained.It is only when such an onus is discharged and a prima facie case of guilt is made out that the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act may come into play, the Court reiterated. "It has further been emphasized in the above case that Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the guilt of the accused and not otherwise," the Court added..In the present case, the top court also noted that the trial court and Punjab and Haryana High Court had ignored the accused's statement that the victim had died a natural death as she was suffering from chronic tuberculosis for which she was under treatment at Beas hospital.Once he had disclosed about the victim's illness and her treatment in a particular hospital, it was for the prosecution to have sought re-examination of the doctor to ascertain whether she was actually suffering from chronic tuberculosis, it said."The prosecution failed to do so or to produce any other independent evidence in this regard to dislodge the version of the appellant," it added..Consequently, the Court acquitted the man as it concluded that the prosecution completely failed to produce evidence to prove his guilt beyond the shadow of doubt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence..Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur and advocate Surbhi Bhardwaj appeared for the appellant..[Read Judgment]