The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh vs State consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal opined that in a murder case, the burden of proof lies on a person who is last seen with the deceased.
Facts
By these appeals, the appellants challenged the impugned judgment convicting Gurdeep Singh and Rehman Ali for murder of one lady Falguni, one 5 years old child Chetna and one male Ashit Kumar; and order directing Gurdeep Singh to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of ₹10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months, and directing Rehman Ali to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of ₹2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months u/s 302/34 of IPC.
Contentions Made
Appellant: It was contended that they were convicted based on circumstantial evidence. So, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC. It was also contended that there was no motive whatsoever attributable to him to have committed the offence alleged.
Respondent: It was contended that the flat where the three dead bodies were found belonged to the appellant. It was also contended that both the appellants executed the plan of committing the murder of three victims to get the original property documents, hence the motive. Moreover, the presence of the appellant in suspicious condition in the flat where the three dead bodies were lying with clothes stained with the blood of the deceased clearly proved his having committed the murder of the three victims with the aid of his employee Rehman Ali.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the prosecution’s case rested primarily upon the circumstantial evidence for which 33 witnesses were examined by the prosecution during trial based on which it was claimed that the offences charged were proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was their case that the onus would lie upon the accused persons u/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and since the accused persons failed to furnish any plausible explanation for the same, adverse inference must be drawn against them.
It was also noted that the defence of the convicts was merely in denial. Relying on Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer regarding the scope of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it reiterated that:
“If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.”
Relying on State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, it was opined that if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him.
Judgment
From the evidence led by the prosecution as also the onus that shifted to the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act having not been discharged, the Court found no error in the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and dismissed the appeals accordingly.
Citation: CRL.A. 1243/2018 & 172/2019
Bench: Justice Mukta Gupta, Justice Anish Dayal
Decided on: 19th September 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
