BALVIR SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 06-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
BALVIR SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2015)
OCTOBER 06, 2023
[J. B. PARDIWALA AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The High Court affi  rmed the judgment and 
order of conviction passed by the Trial Court holding appellant-husband 
guilty of the off ence of murder punishable u/s.302 of the IPC alongwith the 
off ence punishable u/s. 498A of the IPC and appellant-mother-in-law guilty 
of the off ence punishable u/s. 498A of the IPC r/w. 34 of the IPC, whether 
the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment 
and order.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302, s.498A – Prosecution case was that victim 
died due to poisoning – At the time of death only her appellant-husband 
was present – Poison was found in the examination of viscera of the 
deceased – Appellant-husband had not informed family of victim after 
her death – Earlier, victim-deceased had written letters to her family 
informing them regarding harassment from her appellant-husband and 
appellant-mother-in-law for dowry:
Held: The cause of death was due to poisoning – The poison detected 
in the viscera was aluminium phosphide, which is used a fumigant to control 
the insects and rodents – Defense of the convicts to say that the presence of 
aluminium phosphide in the viscera could be due to the medicines which 
the deceased used to take for her heart ailment cannot be accepted – No 
evidence led by the appellant-husband that he had taken victim to the hospital 
in Delhi – The dubious conduct of the convict-husband of not informing the 
family members about the death of their daughter – In the case on hand it 
has been established or rather proved to the satisfaction of the court that the 
deceased was in company of her husband i.e., the appellant-convict at a point 
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 815 : 2023 INSC 879
815
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
816
of time when something went wrong with her health and therefore, in such 
circumstances the appellant-convict alone knew what happened to her until 
she was with him – Appellant-convict (husband) has not explained in any 
manner as to what had actually happened to his wife more particularly when 
it is not in dispute that the appellant-convict was in company of his wife i.e., 
deceased – Although, the appellant-convict tried to project a picture that no 
sooner the deceased fell sick than he immediately took her to the Hospital at 
Delhi – If it is his case, that his wife was declared dead on being brought at 
the hospital then it is diffi  cult to believe that the hospital authorities allowed 
the appellant to carry the dead body back home without completing the 
legal formalities – The circumstances in the instant case constitute more 
than a prima facie case to enable the prosecution to invoke s.106 of the 
Evidence Act and shift the burden on the accused husband to explain what 
had actually happened on the date his wife died – Section 106 does not cast 
any burden upon an accused in a criminal trial, but that, where the accused 
throws no light at all upon the facts which ought to be especially within his 
knowledge, and which could support any theory of hypothesis compatible 
with his innocence, the Court can also consider his failure to adduce any 
explanation, in consonance with the principle of the passage in Deonandan 
Mishra – The courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner 
and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities, 
perfunctory investigation or insignifi cant lacunas in the evidence – In result, 
both the appeals fail. [Paras 29,52,53,56,61 and 62]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Applicability – Meaning of word 
“especially”:
Held: s.106 of the Evidence Act 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 – 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 modifi ed by the rule of facts 
embodied in s.106 of the Evidence Act – s.106 of the Evidence Act is an 
exception to s.101 of the Evidence Act. [Para 34]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 does not absolve the prosecution from 
duty of proving crime:
817
Held: Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the 
prosecution to produce evidence of circu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.