The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied only when the prosecution has independently proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt based on the evidence.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was registered at the instance of Salina Sundi, wherein she stated that she had gone to the paddy field while her mother was present in the house along with the Appellant. When the informant returned home, she found the door of the house was bolted from inside. She knocked on the door and raised the alarm, but no one opened the door, nor could she hear any sound from the house. Thereafter, she went to her uncle, and when he tried to open the door, then also the door was not opened he climbed the rooftop, removed the tiles, entered the house, and opened the door. Entering the room, the informant found her mother dead, and her father was sitting on the cot. Furthermore, the Appellant stated that since her mother did not sleep with him, he murdered her. Then, the FIR was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the Appellant. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that without any legal evidence, the court below convicted the Appellant. It was furthermore contended that the trial court wrongly applied section 106 of the Evidence Act in this case.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that there exists no valid evidence against the appellant which establishes his involvement in the murder of his wife. None of the witnesses has deposed against this appellant, even the informant has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.
The court furthermore observed that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant cannot be found guilty based on the accused's failure to disclose a specific reason or information in the statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Even the right to silence is granted to the appellant/accused.
The court noted that Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied only when the prosecution has been able to independently prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt based on the evidence. Also, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be applied.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Anees vs State Govt. of NCT.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the Trial Court had wrongly applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act in this case, to convict this appellant. The court set aside the conviction and order of sentence.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Jugal Kishore Sundi V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 733 of 2024 With I.A. No. 5470 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari, Advocate.
Advocate for the State: Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A.P.P
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
