New Delhi: The Supreme Court on October 6 (Friday) said that courts should deal with cases related to crimes against women in a realistic manner, and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities, perfunctory investigation, or insignificant lacunas in the evidence.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra made these remarks while dismissing an appeal filed by a man, against his conviction, who failed to explain what had happened to his wife, who died due to poisoning.
The bench said that although the appellant-convict tried to project a picture that as soon as his wife fell sick, he immediately took her to Delhi’s Sanjay Gandhi [Memorial] Hospital, there is no evidence in this regard, the bench said.
“The appellant-convict was expected to lead some evidence as to what had transpired at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. He has maintained complete silence. It is only the appellant-convict who could have explained in what circumstances and in what manner he had taken his wife to the hospital and who attended his wife at the hospital. If it is his case that his wife was declared dead on being brought to the hospital, then it is difficult to believe that the hospital authorities allowed the appellant to carry the dead body back home without completing the legal formalities,” said Justice Pardiwala.
The bench said that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to enable the prosecution to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act (when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him) and shift the burden on the accused husband to explain what had actually happened on the date his wife died.
The word “especially”, the bench explained, means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused.
Section 106 is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act.
Section 101 lays down the general rule that, in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and Section 106 is by no means intended to relieve it of that duty.
On the contrary, the bench said that Section 106 is designed to address specific exceptional circumstances in which it might be impossible or, at the very least, excessively burdensome for the prosecution to substantiate facts that are “especially within the knowledge of the accused and which he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience.”
Citing several cases, the bench held that the court should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution.
“It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases. The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials in this country, that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, is not in any way modified by the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act,” observed the bench.
The bench clarified that Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up for the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence, it held.
The bench further clarified that the onus does not shift to the accused until a prima facie case is established by such circumstantial evidence.
Section 106 pertains to cases where the accused’s guilt is established based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, unless the accused can provide additional facts, particularly within their knowledge, that would negate the prosecution’s evidence, the bench explained.
In such a scenario, if the accused provides an explanation that is reasonably true considering the proven circumstances, they benefit from the principle of reasonable doubt, even if they cannot prove the truth of their explanation beyond a reasonable doubt, said the bench.
However, if the accused fails to provide any explanation or provides a false or untenable explanation, this alone may turn the scale against them, it added.
In the present case, considering the proved facts, the bench said it is unable to speculate about any alternative theory which is compatible with the innocence of the accused.
However, the bench reduced the sentence of the deceased’s mother-in-law, who is convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (dealing with punishment for husband or his relative subjecting a woman to cruelty), to the period already undergone. As she is on bail, the bench said she is not required to surrender at the moment.
The bench argued that courts should approach cases related to women in a more realistic manner. Otherwise, it could lead to criminals being encouraged while discouraging the victims due to the lack of punishment for the crimes.
