Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred Intent Coupled with Trespass Constitutes Full Offence: Supreme Court Mere Possession of Bribe Money Insufficient Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance: Supreme Court Right to Promotion is Not a Fundamental Right; Retrospective Benefits Without Service Cannot Be Granted: Supreme Court of India Oral Gift Validity in Mohammedan Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Constructive Possession and Injunction Unauthorized Construction on Government Irrigation Land Must Be Demolished: Calcutta High Court Directs Sub-Divisional Officer High Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Over Road Obstruction Due to Non-Prosecution Victim of Rape Has Right to Bodily Integrity and Reproductive Choice: Gujarat High Court Permits Termination of 24-Week Pregnancy Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards

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