- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- S.106 Evidence Act | Husband Can't...
S.106 Evidence Act | Husband Can't Be Asked To Explain Wife's Death In Their House Unless Prosecution Establishes Prima Facie Case: Bombay High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
12 Jun 2022 4:00 AM GMT
The Bombay High court recently set aside the conviction of a man in connection with the murder of his wife, even though her body was found in their home and he was found near the deceased. A Bench of Justices Sadhana S. Jadhav and Milind N. Jadhav reasoned that the accused has a right to maintain silence and it is for the prosecution to first prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, before...
The Bombay High court recently set aside the conviction of a man in connection with the murder of his wife, even though her body was found in their home and he was found near the deceased.
A Bench of Justices Sadhana S. Jadhav and Milind N. Jadhav reasoned that the accused has a right to maintain silence and it is for the prosecution to first prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, before the accused can be asked to explain the circumstances in his defence.
It noted that as per section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution is unable to conclusively prove that the accused harmed his wife, the onus would not shift upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which his wife has died, and her dead body is found in the house occupied by the accused and the deceased.
"Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not discharge the initial burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Unless the prosecution is able to stand on its own legs and give a conclusive proof of the fact that the accused is the author of the injuries sustained by his wife the onus would not shift upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which his wife has died, and her dead body is found in the house occupied by the accused and the deceased."
The accused was found in his house with the body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood by Witness no. 1, to whom he allegedly confessed to have killed his wife. As per the prosecution, the accused beat her on her head and back while she was asleep. Later he paid no attention to her and at 6 am next morning, he noticed that she was dead.
Witness no. 1 reported this to the police and chargesheet was filed. However, in his substantive evidence Witness no. 1 did not depose about the disclosure statement made by the accused to him and deposed before the Court that upon inquiry of the said incident, the accused told him that his wife was dead. The witness was therefore declared hostile.
The prosecution argued that it is incumbent upon the accused to offer an explanation as contemplated under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the very fact that the dead body is found in the house of the accused and he has not put forth any plausible explanation is sufficient to convict the accused for an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Moreover, at 10 ft. from the house of the accused in a carton of cardboard containing newspaper a bamboo stick was concealed. The same was recovered at the instance of the accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court noted that the question before it would be as to what is the evidence as against the accused which would lead to a necessary inference that the accused is the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased. "An accused can be convicted only in the eventuality that the investigation places on record such material which could be converted into admissible evidence and can be read in evidence. In the present case, in view of the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it would be difficult to act upon the supposition that the fact of homicidal death at the hands of the accused is proved."
The court noted that except for the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found in his house, there is no other evidence to lead to the inference that he hurt his wife.
"It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused has a right to maintain silence and it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the defence has given suggestions that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and that on her way home she had fallen in the nullah and had sustained the said injuries."
Moreover, the court noted that the extra judicial confession also cannot be relied upon as the Witness turned hostile. The court thus acquitted the accused.
Case Title : Suresh Ladak Bhagat v The State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 210
