Top court frees man after 10 years in jail

The Supreme Court has exonerated a man who spent over 10 years in jail for a murder that was never proved beyond reasonable doubt, underlining that a person cannot be held guilty merely because a crime occurred within the four walls of their dwelling. In a strong reaffirmation of Indian criminal jurisprudence, the top court also underscored that the burden of proving guilt always rests on the prosecution and cannot be conveniently shifted to an accused.

A bench of justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the conviction handed down by the Punjab & Haryana high court in 2019, observing that the case against the accused was based solely on circumstantial evidence, which failed to conclusively establish his guilt.

In its judgment on Monday, the top court noted that the 2014 case lacked direct evidence and relied entirely on circumstances that failed to form a complete and unbroken chain leading to the accused’s guilt. Citing the landmark decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984), the bench reiterated the five essential principles governing circumstantial evidence. These include the requirement that the circumstances must be fully established, of a conclusive nature, and incapable of any explanation other than the accused’s guilt.

Applying these principles to the present case, the court observed: “The circumstances of this case, in no way, conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant; rather, they give sufficient room to form a different opinion. On the basis of the above circumstantial evidence, the innocence of the appellant cannot be completely ruled out.”

According to the prosecution, the accused, in connivance with his second wife, had killed his first wife in August 2014 by strangulating her with a rope. The crime was registered in Amritsar. 

The prosecution sought to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, arguing that since the crime occurred within the four walls of the man’s dwelling, he was obligated to explain the circumstances leading to the deceased’s death. However, the Supreme Court categorically rejected this reasoning, clarifying that the provision does not relieve the prosecution of its initial burden to establish prima facie guilt.

“The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials and places the onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused does not, in any way, stand modified by the provisions contained under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The said provision cannot be invoked to make up for the inability of the prosecution to produce the evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused,” the judgment stated.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has been replaced by Section 109 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 -- effective from July 1, 2024.

The court further cited its recent three-judge bench ruling in Anees vs Govt of NCT of Delhi (2024), emphasising that Section 106 applies only when the prosecution has successfully proven facts leading to a reasonable inference of guilt, which was not the case here.

The court also scrutinised the medical and investigative evidence presented by the prosecution in the present case. The doctor who performed the autopsy had opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging but admitted in cross-examination that ligature marks could have resulted from the body’s transportation and that tuberculosis could also have caused death.

Moreover, the investigating officer failed to establish beyond doubt that the rope recovered from the scene was used in the alleged crime, given that similar ropes were commonly available. These lapses, the court observed, further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Noting that the accused had already spent over 10 years in prison, the court ordered his immediate release, observing that his conviction rested on an untenable foundation of circumstantial evidence. The judgment also extended appreciation to senior advocate Sonia Mathur and advocate Surbhi Bhardwaj, who represented the accused through legal aid.