Husband Is Wife's 'Protector'; His Burden U/S 106 Evidence Act To Explain Her Death On 'Higher Pedestal': Allahabad HC Upholds Life Term

A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, clarified that while the prosecution must prove the foundational facts, once the "last seen together" circumstance is established between spouses, the husband cannot take refuge in silence or vague denials.

The case dates back to March 9, 2015 and the prosecution successfully established that the appellant-husband brought his wife to her maternal village. A witness testified to seeing the appellant taking the deceased away on his motorcycle around 6 PM. The appellant had assured the witness they would "be returning back shortly."

However, they never returned and the next morning, wife's body was discovered in a wheat field in the nearby village. The medical evidence confirmed homicidal death by strangulation. In 2017, the trial court convicted the husband-appellant and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life. Challenging his conviction, he moved the HC.

High Court's observations

In its analysis of the evidence of the witnesses, the Court found that there existed neither any inherently improbable nor do have any inconsistent or mutually contradictory versions.

"We could not find even a single strand to opine that the witnesses, examined in the case, were unworthy of credence. Thus, we find that apparently, a foundational fact was built by the prosecution, which are founded on sound evidence, in as much as a chain of events have been woven, which points towards the culpability of the appellant", the Court noted.

Since the case rested on circumstantial evidence, the High Court treated the 'last seen together' circumstance, read with Section 106, as a crucial link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The Bench noted that the time gap between when the deceased was last seen with the appellant and the recovery of the corpse was "quite proximate".

It added that while the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

The Court opined that while Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position, that if the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused may be used against the accused, as it may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him.

"In the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him", the Court added.

The Court reasoned that since the facts were within the appellant's special knowledge, it was incumbent upon him to explain "under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased".

"...there is always a presumption that the husband is custodian of the wife. He is the protector and is required to maintain his wife properly and with huge degree of dignity. Therefore, it is the appellant-husband, who owes a responsibility and an explanation as to in what circumstances the dead body of his Wife-Anita could be found in the nearby village," the bench noted.

However, when confronted with these incriminating circumstances during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant-husband offered no explanation and merely denied the evidence.

The Bench opined that this failure to explain, or offering a false explanation, became "an additional link in the chain of circumstances" against him.

"The appellant apart from claiming ignorance and denying the various incriminating evidence presented during the trial, chose not to adduce any evidence to explain these circumstances. Thus, his silence and failure to explain any of the incriminatory circumstances, would strengthen the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence against him as proved by the prosecution and according to this Court becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances", the Court remarked.

The Court further took into account the appellant's suspicious post-crime conduct, including his failure to participate in the Panchayatnama (inquest) and his lack of effort to search for his wife despite her prolonged absence.

The court found that objectively, the chain of circumstances against the appellant can be enumerated in the following manner:

Homicidal death – established by medical evidence.

Last seen together – Deceased was last seen together with the appellant shortly before death.

Recovery and C.D.R. – connect accused to place of death and time.

Absconding and false denial – strengthen inference of guilt.

Thus, observing that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court upheld the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and directed the appellant to undergo the sentence awarded.