Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

When a Crime Takes Place in the Privacy of a Home, the Burden Shifts to the Accused to Explain – Supreme Court on Circumstantial Evidence. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that when an incident occurs within the privacy of a home, the burden of explaining the circumstances shifts to the accused. The Court ruled, "If an accused is the only person present at the place of occurrence and does not offer a plausible explanation for the death of the deceased, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Silence or false explanations strengthen the chain of circumstantial evidence leading to conviction."

The case pertained to the suspicious death of Virendra Kumari on the night of July 15, 2003. The accused, Balveer Singh, was the husband of the deceased and the only adult present at home at the time of the incident. Instead of reporting the death, Singh secretly cremated his wife’s body without informing her family. The case was brought to light by their seven-year-old daughter (PW6, Rani), who testified that she witnessed her father strangling her mother.

The Trial Court convicted Balveer Singh under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the exact manner of death and that the testimony of the child witness could not be relied upon without corroboration.

The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the accused’s failure to explain the circumstances of the death and his suspicious conduct after the incident were sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court placed significant reliance on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The Court reiterated that this provision is particularly relevant in cases of custodial deaths or crimes occurring within a private space where the accused was the only person present.

Quoting its earlier ruling in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, the Court held: "Where an offence takes place inside a house, and the accused is the only adult present, it is his duty to provide an explanation for the circumstances leading to the death. If he fails to do so, the presumption of innocence weakens and the chain of circumstantial evidence is strengthened against him."

The Court further referred to State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar (2000) 8 SCC 382, where it was held that: "The prosecution is not required to prove the crime with absolute mathematical precision. When the accused alone had knowledge of the facts leading to the death and does not provide a reasonable explanation, the court can draw an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act."

False or No Explanation Strengthens Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court examined the statements made by Balveer Singh under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he admitted that he was present in the house but failed to provide any explanation for his wife’s sudden death. The Court noted that:

• The accused admitted that his wife was alive when they went to sleep.

• He provided no explanation for her sudden death, despite being in the house.

• Instead of informing her family, he secretly cremated the body and absconded.

The Court emphasized that when an accused gives a false explanation or remains silent on critical aspects of the case, it becomes a strong incriminating factor.

Quoting from Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC 725, the Court observed: "The failure of the accused to explain the cause of death or the circumstances in which it occurred provides an additional link to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The accused cannot escape liability merely by remaining silent when the facts are peculiarly within his knowledge."

Apart from his failure to explain his wife’s death, the Supreme Court noted several suspicious actions by Balveer Singh that indicated a guilty conscience:

• He did not inform his wife’s family about her death.

• He cremated the body secretly, preventing an autopsy that could have determined the exact cause of death.

• He absconded from the village, further strengthening the inference of guilt.

The Court stated that such conduct was not natural for an innocent person and cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, which held that: "A guilty mind often seeks to evade justice by suppressing evidence or fleeing from the scene. Such conduct, when unexplained, serves as a strong incriminating circumstance."

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s approach in discarding the conviction, stating that it adopted an overly technical view of the evidence. The High Court had discarded the prosecution’s case merely because there was no eyewitness apart from the child witness and because the exact manner of death was not proved.

Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court held: "A conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence alone if the chain of circumstances is complete and rules out every hypothesis except that of guilt. Courts cannot insist on direct evidence in cases where crimes are committed in secrecy."

The Court reiterated that: "The High Court’s hyper-technical approach resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice. The focus should be on the totality of evidence and not on minor inconsistencies or procedural delays."

Setting aside the High Court’s acquittal, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s conviction and life sentence for Balveer Singh. The accused was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve his sentence.

The Court concluded with a strong message: "The criminal justice system must balance the rights of the accused with the need to deliver justice for victims. In cases where circumstantial evidence clearly points to guilt, courts must not allow procedural technicalities to defeat the cause of justice."

This judgment reinforces the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in cases where crimes occur in private spaces and serves as a strong precedent on the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.

Date of decision: 24/02/2025