LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus THAKUR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 8 S.C.R. 18 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. THAKUR SINGH . (Criminal AppElal No.357 of 2005) JUNE 30, 2014 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 106 - Principle laid down u/s. 106 - Application of - Held: Section 106 provides that when C any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him - Burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution - However, certain facts pertaining to a crime which can be known only · to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution D to prove, ,need to be explained by accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts - On facts, wife died an unnatural death in the room occupied by her and her husband, the cause of the unnatural death was known to husband, however, he made E no attempts to explain the unusual situation - No evidence that anybody else had entered their room or could have entered their room - Thus, principle u/s.106 applicable to the facts of the case and there is a very strong presumption that 'wife' was murdered by hus!Sand - High Court completely F overlooked the principle uls. 106, cursorily dealt with the evidence on record and arrived at a perverse conclusion in law and set aside the order of conviction of the husband - Thus, order passed by the High Court set aside and that of the trial judge restored - Penal Code, 1860 -. s. 302. G H According to the prosecution, the respondent- husband confined himself, his wife 'DK' and their daughter inside the room and bolted it from within. He did not open the door for the whole day. The door had to be 18 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. THAKUR SINGH 19 forced open and 'DK' was found dead in a room occupied A by her and the respondent. The respondent was caught by his brothers and relatives. An FIR was lodged alleging that the respondent had killed 'DK'. The trial court convicted the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life B imprisonment and fine. Hpwever, the High Court acquitted the respondent. Hence, the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 C provides, inter alia, that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be known only to the D accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution to prpve. These facts need to be explained by the accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts. [Paras 14, 22] [26-8-C; 29-C-D] E 2.1. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of · the instant case, since 'DK' died an unnatural death in the room occupied by her and the respondent, the cause of the unnatural death was known to the respondent. There is no evidence that anybody else had entered their room or could have entered their room. The respondent did not set up any case that he was not in their room or not in the vicinity of their room while the incident occurred nor did he set up any case that some other person entered F the room and caused the unnatural death of his wife. The G facts relevant to the cause of 'OK's death were known only to the respondent, yet he chose not to disclose them or to explain them. The principle laid down in Section 106 of the Evidence Act is clearly applicable to the facts of H 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A the case and there is, therefore, a very strohg presumption that 'DK' was murdered by the respondent. [Para 23) [29-D-G] 2.2. It is not that the respondent was obliged to prove 8 his innocence or prove that he had not committed any offence. All that was required of the respondent was to explain the unusual situation, namely of the unnatural death of his wife in their room, but he made no attempt to do this. [Para 24) [29-G-H] C 2.3. The High Court very cursorily dealt with the evidence on record and upset a finding of guilt by the trial court in a situation where the respondent failed to give any explanation whatsoever for the death of his wife by asphyxia in his room. Moreover, the very fact that all the D relatives of the respondent turned hostile clearly gives room for suspicion and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.