LexANEES versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 6 S.C.R. 164 : 2024 INSC 368 Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT (Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2015) 03 May 2024 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – “prima facie case” (foundational facts) in the context of s.106 – Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in the early morning hours in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5-year-old daughter were living – s.106 was invoked, appellant convicted u/s.302 for the murder – Correctness: Held: s.106 would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused – In the present case, offence took place inside the four walls of the house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5-year-old daughter were living – The incident occurred in the early morning hours – When the Investigating Officer (IO) reached the house of the appellant, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood – Appellant was also present there – The defence put forward by the appellant that two unidentified persons entered the house and inflicted injuries on the deceased and also on his body was found to be false – Clothes worn by the appellant at the time of the incident had blood stains which matched with the blood group of the deceased – Further, the conduct of the appellant in leading the IO and others to a drain nearby his house and the discovery of the knife from the drain is a [2024] 6 S.C.R. 165 Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT relevant fact u/s.8, Evidence Act – Thus, in view of the aforesaid foundational facts being duly proved, the courts below were justified in invoking the principles enshrined u/s. 106 – High Court committed no error in affirming the order of conviction passed by the trial court, holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder of his wife – However, in view of the mitigating circumstances, appellant at liberty to prefer representation to the State Government for remission of sentence. [Paras 50, 56 and 84] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Applicability – Principles of law: Held: The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in s.106 – s.106 is an exception to s.101, Evidence Act – s.106 is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, “especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience” – Court should apply s.106 in criminal cases with care and caution – s.106 cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused – It 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 does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed – To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden – So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused. [Paras 36, 43, 44] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – “especially” – Meaning: Held: s.106 provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him – The word “especially” means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused – s.106
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.