Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Odisha at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2015.
Brief Facts:
The accused appellants herein were tenants of one Mayadhar Mohapana. The said landlord lodged an FIR stating that an unknown person had attacked the accused appellants. The landlord heard a loud cry from the portion of his house which was rented to the appellants. This unknown person remained inside the appellants’ house. It was initially suspected that he had committed suicide by consuming poison. One Ranjan Rana identified the deceased to be Sanjay Rana. He further disclosed that the deceased had a love relationship with the daughter of the appellants. Post-mortem examination of the body was also conducted and it was opined by the doctor that the deceased victim was assaulted by two or more persons with acid and blunt objects. Thus, death was homicidal in nature. In consequence thereof, charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellants and their daughter for offences under Sections 302, 201, 109 and 34 IPC. The Sessions Court held that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, convicted the accused appellants and their daughter under above said Sections. Aggrieved, appellants and their daughter challenged the judgment of the Trial Court before the High Court. Vide impugned judgment, the High Court acquitted the daughter of all charges, as she was not present at the scene of offence. It was observed that she had no role in the actual incident and therefore cannot be termed as an abettor to the crime.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that reliance placed on Section 106 of the Evidence Act is misconstrued, in absence of clear evidence pointing to the guilt of the appellants accused. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and has therefore failed to discharge its burden of proof. It was submitted that in the absence of the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court cannot supplant Section 106 of the Evidence Act to discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon the prosecution. It was submitted that the High Court erred in convicting the appellants by entirely relying upon circumstantial evidence.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that vide judgment impugned herein, it was rightly observed that the version of the second set of witnesses was more convincing as it established the relationship between the deceased and the appellants, which, to an extent was accepted by the appellant’s husband herein and the daughter. It was contended that from a perusal of the facts and material on record it is evident that no one else except the appellants herein were present at the scene of the offence and therefore, on account of the appellants having special knowledge, reference to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, has been rightly made.
SC’s Observations:
The issue before the SC was whether the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof, and that the chain of events has been successfully established so as to attract application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act?
SC stated that Section 106 of the Evidence Act postulates that the burden of proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual. Although the Section in no way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution. If the accused had a different intention than the facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove.
SC stated that Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events.
SC stated that in the instant case, the prosecution had thus succeeded in establishing intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence. Such an intention, when analysed in the light of the statements made by all the sets of witnesses, and fatal injuries sustained by the deceased at the relevant place and time, certainly makes out a strong case that death of the deceased was indeed caused by the appellants. Therefore, once the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events, the burden was on the appellants to prove it otherwise.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “it can be deduced that the entire sequence of events strongly points towards the guilt of the accused appellants, and that the appellants have failed to offer any credible defense in this regard. The entire chain of events points towards the guilt of the appellants. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The appeals, accordingly, stand dismissed.”
Case Title: Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha
Bench: CJI. N.V. Ramana and J. Krishna Murari and J. Hima Kohli
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 988 OF 2017
Decided on: 20th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
