G H RANJIT KUMAR HALDAR versus STATE OF SIKKIM

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 25-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
RANJIT KUMAR HALDAR
v.
STATE OF SIKKIM
(Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2014)
JULY 25, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Murder – Prosecution case was
that the victim-deceased had gone with his family for work with the
accused – Accused along with his nephew and wife of the deceased
murdered the victim and buried his body in the house where they
used to stay –  Body of deceased was concealed underneath the
wooden flooring at their place of residence and was recovered on
the disclosure statement made by the wife of the deceased after
removing the flooring – Conviction of appellants by courts below –
On appeal, held: There is no dispute that the lock of the house was
opened by the Police for the first time after appellant locked the
house and went to his native village – The house was in his
possession and no one had access to that house and, therefore, the
burden of proving the fact that somebody had access to the house
during his absence was on him in terms of s.106 of the Evidence
Act – Appellant did not even suggest to the prosecution witnesses of
possibility of access to the house rented by him – The testimony of
PW-5 that the house was taken on rent by the appellant was proved
– Appellant miserably failed to disprove the presumption under s.106
of the Evidence Act – In respect of the lady accused,  recovery of
dead body concealed under the wooden planks covered by mud
and stones on her disclosure statement was very strong incriminating
circumstance against her to maintain her conviction – Apart from
that, there was a statement of PW-2 before whom she had confessed
– PW-4, husband of PW-2 supported this testimony – Also the dead
body was identified by PW-3 from the wearing apparels of the
deceased such as sweater and a mala – None of the witnesses were
cross-examined to the effect that dead body was not of the deceased
– Both the courts below rightly recorded conviction of the appellants
as the persons responsible for causing death of the deceased –
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106.
   [2019] 9 S.C.R. 754
754
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
Evidence Act, 1872: s.106 – Burden of proof – s.106 lays
down general rule about the burden of proof –  This section was
introduced not to relieve the prosecution of their duty but was
designed to meet the situation in which it is impossible or difficult
for the prosecution to establish facts which were especially within
the knowledge of the accused – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302.
First Information Report: Murder case – FIR was lodged
originally in Bengali language which was later translated in Nepali
language – Non-examination of translator – Effect on prosecution
case – Held: First Information Report was only in respect of
information of death – The Investigating Officer carried out
investigation de-hors the version given by the informant in the First
Information Report – Therefore, non-examination of translator
would not create any doubt on the prosecution case – Penal Code,
1860 – s.302.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Burden of proof. Section 106 of the Evidence
Act was introduced not to relieve the prosecution of their duty
but it is designed to meet the situation in which it would be
impossible or difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which
are especially within the knowledge of the accused. [Para 14]
[761-B-C]
1.2 The dead body was recovered in a gunny bag concealed
under the wooden planks covered by mud and stones. The lock
of the house was opened by the Police for the first time after
appellant locked the house and went to his native village.
Therefore, in the absence of any question on these aspects that
the house was in his possession and no one had access to that
house, the burden of proving the fact that somebody had access
to the house during his absence was on him in terms of Section
106 of the Act.  The testimony of PW-5 that the house was taken
on rent by the appellant was proved and on the basis of statement
of PW-3, who is a Carpenter and was residing in the same area,
the appellant miserably failed to disprove the presumption under
Section 106 of the Act. [Para 21] [767-B-E]
2. In respect of the lady accused, there is evidence of
recovery of dead body concealed in a house on the basis of her
RANJIT KUMAR HALDAR v. STATE OF SIKKIM
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
disclosure statement, where she was allegedly living with the
other appellant al

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