Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Burden Of Proof On Accused To Explain Circumstances Within His Knowledge, When Prosecution Establishes Prima Facie Case: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of Anees, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, Saira. The apex court’s judgment, delivered on May 3, 2024, delves deep into the nuances of circumstantial evidence, the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the handling of hostile witnesses.

The case involved the tragic death of Saira, who was found with multiple stab wounds in 1995. Anees was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. The focus of the appeal was on the reliability of their minor daughter’s testimony, the discovery of the murder weapon, and the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the accused to explain facts particularly within their knowledge.

The Supreme Court criticized the manner in which the prosecution managed the testimony of Anees’s daughter, who turned hostile during the trial. The judgment highlighted the critical need for rigorous cross-examination of key witnesses to reveal the truth.

The court addressed the discovery of the murder weapon, noting that while certain witnesses related to this discovery turned hostile, the fact that Anees led police to the weapon was significant under Sections 27 and 8 of the Evidence Act, affirming that his conduct was a considerable corroborative factor, albeit insufficient on its own for conviction.

The judgment extensively discussed Section 106 of the Evidence Act, affirming its application given that the circumstances of the murder were uniquely within Anees’s knowledge. This legal point underscored the expectation that the accused must provide an explanation when the prosecution has established a prima facie case.

The court rejected the defense’s argument pertaining to Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which relates to acts done without premeditation in a sudden fight. It noted that the use of a deadly weapon and the fatal injuries inflicted were disproportionate, disqualifying the applicability of this exception.

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal reiterates the conviction and life sentence. However, recognizing the long duration Anees has been in custody and his advanced age, the court permitted him to seek state government remission of the sentence, considering these mitigating factors.

This ruling is crucial for legal practitioners, especially those dealing with criminal law and cases involving domestic violence and murder. It illustrates the complexities in handling evidence and witness testimonies, especially in cases involving familial relations.

Date of Decision : May 3, 2024.

“Anees Versus The State Govt. of NCT,”

Similar News