A two-judge bench of the Odisha High Court comprising of Justice S. Murali Dhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.
Facts:
The deceased, namely, Suphala Sahu was alleged to have committed suicide at her house. PW-11 conducted the post-mortem and opined that the death was due to asphyxia. In particular, the ligature mark was found to be post-mortem in nature. On perusing the post-mortem report, the case was converted to Section 302 of IPC read with Section 201 of IPC. A case was formed against the four accused persons for the same. In the trial court, as many as fifteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence. The trial Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case against the Appellant for the murder of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. PW-13 and PW-14, who are the parents of the deceased, admitted that prior to the incident, the deceased had complained several times against the accused about his misbehaving with her. Despite PW-13 complaining to the husband of the deceased, i.e., (PW-3), he did not take any action to prevent his younger brother, i.e., the Appellant, from misbehaving with the deceased. It was concluded that the present Appellant along with four-five persons had consumed liquor and when the deceased protested, there was a fight between her and the accused- Appellant, leading to her murder by the accused. On her death, the mother-in-law of the deceased, i.e., the mother of the present Appellant requested PW-13 and PW-14 to save the Appellant from criminal liability as he was behind the act.
Contentions of the Appellant:
This is a case of circumstantial evidence and each link of the chain of circumstances had to be conclusively proved by the prosecution. The mere fact that the death was homicidal was not enough to prove the guilt of the present Appellant. The evidence of PWs-13 and 14 was in the nature of hearsay and was, therefore, inadmissible. Whatever they had heard was purportedly from PW-7, i.e., the mother of the accused- Appellant, who could not have confessed to what she had not seen. Further, PWs-13 and 14 had not spoken to anyone about these statements immediately after the commission of the death of the deceased either in writing or oral or even in the FIR drawn up by PW-15. The trial Court erred in holding that the statement of PW-7 was a ‘confessional’ and was admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on the decision in Gentela Vijayvardhan Rao v. State of A.P. (1996) 6 SCC 241 to contend that the said statement has to be admissible as res gestae u/s 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, it should’ve been made either contemporaneously/soon after the incident.
Observations of the Court:
The court relied on the doctor who performed the post-mortem and found abrasions over the left eye and nose, laceration of mouth, ligature mark over the neck. Significantly, this ligature mark was opined to be ‘post-mortem’ in nature. Thus, possibility of suicidal hanging was completely ruled out and the death was presumed on account of forcibly closing of mouth and nose - in ordinary course of nature. As regards the evidence of the PWs-13 and 14, the Court found that while they did not disclose what was told to them by PW-7 to others, this is not surprising given the sensitivity of the matter. However, their deposition was natural as to their daughter who complained to them about the behaviour of the accused with her. When this was seen with the evidence of PW-3, who was the husband of the deceased, explains that he was unable to control the accused, who was his younger brother. Turning to the evidence of PW-7, the court held that even if one discards the confession made by her to PWs-13 and 14 as "hearsay evidence", the fact remains that it was made to them soon after the incident on the following day when they reached the village of the accused. However, the trial Court did not recall PW-7 for her to be cross-examined on these aspects and, therefore, not much weight can be attached to the so-called statements of PW-7 to PWs-13 and 14. Further, all of the circumstances presented by the prosecution form a continuous chain and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused-Appellant and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applies. Therefore, the court was satisfied that no error has been committed by the trial Court to convict the present Appellant.
Decision:
The court found no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. The bail bond of the Appellant was hereby cancelled.
Case: Dhadia @ Mandar Sahu vs State of Orissa
Citation: CRA No. 281 of 1999
Coram: Chief Justice S. Murali Dhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash
Decided on: 15.09.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
