If accused has a different aim – must establish specific facts – Apex Court
D.D: – 20th MAY, 2022
Crucial issue Before the Apex court in SABITRI SAMANTARAY Vs STATE D.D 20TH MAY 2022, whether the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of evidence, and that the chain of events has been successfully established so as to attract operation on Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The accused appellants were tenants of one Mayadhar Mohapana. The landlord on 21.07.2008, lodged an FIR stating that an unknown person had a attacked them with a “Kata”. He rescued the couple through an inter-connected door in his house.
Facts – A person was found dead inside the kitchen of the house. Initially, it was suspected that he had committed suicide by poison. On 24.07.2008, one Ranjan Rana identified the deceased as Sanjay Rana. He further disclosed that the deceased had a love relationship with the daughter of the appellants.
A post – mortem examination has concluded that death was caused by compression on lower part of the neck, resulting in blockage of upper end of the trachea. It was further opined that the deceased victim was assaulted by two or more persons with acid and bhunt objects.
The accused appellants on the contrary maintained that the unknown person hac forcibly entered into their house and locked it from inside. He first encountered accused no. 1( i.e. Bidyadhar Praharaj) and threatened to kill him, should he refused to hand over entire money and valuables. Subsequently, both the appellants were assaulted by the deceased, which resulted in injuries. They were eventually rescued, and thereafter police implicated them in a false case.
Trial Court held that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, convicted the accused appellants and their daughter for murder.
Aggrieved, appellants and their daughter challenged the judgment of the Trial Court before the High Court, the High Court acquitted the daughter of all charges, as she was not present at the scene of offence. On the other hand, the conviction of the accused appellants was confirmed by the High Court However High court observed that as there was a strong possibility of actuality of grave and unforeseen provocation which was perceptible from adduced substantiation, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to conviction under Section 304 II) IPC, and both the criminated were thereby doomed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five times.
Apex Court observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act stipulates that the burden of proof for matters within the particular knowledgofa person rests with that person Although this section in no way relieves the prosecution of its responsibility to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, it does stipulate that when a person commits an act with a different intent than what the circum stances suggest, it is the individual, not the prosecution, who bears the burden of proving that specific intent. If the defendant has a different aim, he must establish specific facts that are within his knowledge.
SABITRI SAMANTARAY
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA
