Once Prosecution Establishes Facts, Accused Must Explain Circumstances Within His Knowledge Or Face Adverse Inference: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that although the prosecution bears the primary burden of proving guilt, courts are entitled to draw an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act where the accused fails to explain facts especially within his knowledge after the prosecution has established foundational circumstances.The Court made this observation while upholding the conviction of a man for kidnapping and murdering a minor girl but commuting the death sentence awarded by the trial court to life imprisonment. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar delivered the judgment while deciding a criminal appeal filed by appellant challenging his conviction under Sections 302 and 363 of the Ranbir Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah. The trial court had sentenced him to capital punishment for the murder of a minor girl. Background of the Case:The case related to the disappearance of a minor girl in 2013. Ten days later, the decomposed body of the child was recovered from an isolated cave area near a Nallah and was identified by family members on the basis of her clothes. Medical opinion indicated that the death had occurred due to manual strangulation. The Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, subsequently convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 363 RPC and awarded the death penalty, which was challenged before the High Court.Appearing for the appellant, advocate Meharban Singh argued that the conviction was unsustainable as the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and suffered from serious inconsistencies. It was submitted that the key witnesses were close relatives of the deceased and none of them had actually seen the accused committing the crime.It was also argued that identification of the body was based only on clothes due to decomposition and that no DNA test was conducted. The defence also contended that the last-seen theory was unreliable since the statement of the alleged last-seen witness had been recorded after a delay of twenty-two days and other persons present at the canteen were not examined. Another major contention raised was that there was a time gap of nearly ten to eleven days between the alleged last-seen circumstance and the recovery of the body, leaving open the possibility of involvement of a third person. Court on Circumstantial Evidence:After examining the record and hearing both sides, the High Court reiterated the legal principles governing conviction in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence. The Court referred to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which laid down the “five golden principles” governing circumstantial evidence.In this regard, the Court observed, “Where the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and the theory of last seen together, the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence.” The Bench further noted that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof and that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be firmly established and must form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the accused. Reliability of the Last Seen EvidenceRejecting the defence argument regarding delay in recording the witness's statement, the Court held that such delay is not automatically fatal if satisfactorily explained.The Bench observed that the father of the deceased had mentioned this information in the complaint lodged soon after the incident, which lent assurance to the testimony of the witness. The Court also held that non-examination of every possible witness present at the canteen did not weaken the prosecution case when the testimony of the examined witness appeared credible.The Bench noted that the body of the child was recovered from an isolated cave area about half an hour's walking distance from the place where she had last been seen with the accused. Medical evidence confirmed homicidal death by manual strangulation within a time frame consistent with the date of disappearance, the court pointed. While acknowledging lapses in investigation, such as failure to conduct DNA testing or properly match hair samples the Court held that such deficiencies do not necessarily demolish an otherwise reliable prosecution case.Conduct of the Accused and Section 106 Evidence ActThe Court also took into account the conduct of the accused after the disappearance of the child. It noted that while the accused's brothers participated in search operations, the accused himself remained absent from the village during the crucial period and failed to explain his whereabouts.In this context, the Court made a significant observation regarding Section 106 of the Evidence Act, “While Section 106 of the Act does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden, it permits the Court to draw an adverse inference...

Once Prosecution Establishes Facts, Accused Must Explain Circumstances Within His Knowledge Or Face Adverse Inference: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Once Prosecution Establishes Facts, Accused Must Explain Circumstances Within His Knowledge Or Face Adverse Inference: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers