Accused cannot be held guilty because he failed to explain under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the same can only be held as additional link to complete the chain of circumstance..

 

     The Supreme Court of India has set Appellant at liberty setting aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 436  of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ordered by the  Sessions Court and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

The Session Court and the High Court held Appellant to be guilty on the motive to commit the offence because of the fact that the husband of the Appellant, being second wife, was transferring the land in favour of the first wife, and she wanted to establish her dominance in the house.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the findings and reasoned that “the marriage had been registered after an arrangement for maintenance was made in favour of the first wife for only a portion of the property which is normal thing in such circumstance and it cannot be held as a strong motive for an alleged crime of the present nature where the appellant would destroy her own house and that too without there being any other incident when they have lived together in the same house and the fire incident has occurred after more than six months from the date of marriage. If all these aspects are taken into consideration the doubt which arise in the mind would outweigh the reasons given by the High Court for pointing to the suspicion on the appellant  and in that circumstance the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the appellant”.

The High Court held Appellant guilty of committing the offence since the Appellant had not sustained the slightest injury due to the fire which means that she left the house well in advance to the spreading of fire. The Appellant did not try to alarm the decease and her children to leave the house so as to save them fire, nor did she try to bring the small children out of the house to save their lives. The High court further assumed that she did not shout immediately and waited until the deceased and her children were fully caught by flames. The Court observed that the Appellant was under the obligation view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act  to explain the circumstances  within her special knowledge but she did not discharge the obligation to give reason behind eruption of fire. 

The High Court ultimately recorded "the circumstances speak volumes about the guilty mind of the appellant". The High Court also concurred on the opinion of Session Court that the Appellant wants to establish dominance in the house. The Court held it is difficult to establish motive by direct evidence. So it has to be inferred on the basis of the attending circumstances. Therefore the Appellant was convicted on the assumption that she had not suffered injuries in the fire accident.

The Apex Court diverged the view of High Court and reasoned that “the natural human conduct is that when there is any incident or accident the immediate reaction is to get away from the scene and save oneself. If in the middle of the night for whatever reason there was fire and if the appellant had woken up notice it a little earlier, the natural conduct is to run out of the house instead of going into the house which is burning to check on the other inmates. It takes a person lot of courage or be overdriven with compassion to get back into the house to save somebody else and not doing so may be considered morally wrong, but it cannot be a circumstances to hold a person guilty of a crime which is serious unless the other circumstances in the chain point to the accused so as to lead to an irresistible conclusion of being guilty”.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the High Court held appellant guilty more on preponderance of probability rather than  reaching a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

The Apex Court analyzed  the fact of the case and observed that kerosene stain in the frock of the deceased cannot be the basis to held Appellant guilty without anything on record to connect the Appellant responsible for sprinkling kerosene and the fact, recovering  of empty kerosene can in the corner of the house cannot be the ground to held one responsible since in village kerosene is household essential commodity.

“ If an event is taken as a circumstances in the chain, the same is insufficient unless the other circumstances in the chain were connected to that event”, the Supreme Court said.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda  vs. State of Maharshtra (1984) to disagree with the view of High Court and reiterate that “the failure to explain, under Section 106 of Evidence Act, can only be held as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances. In the instant case since the other circumstances in the chain are not established, the same cannot be held against the appellant”.

The Court also referred to the case of  Devilal vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) wherein it was held that mere suspicion would not be sufficient unless the circumstantial evidence tendered by the prosecution leads to the conclusion that it “must be true” and not “may be true”.

Hence, the Court acquitted  the Appellant set at liberty, on the benefit of doubt.

Case: Parubai vs. The State of Maharashtra.

DOJ: 10.08.2021