Prosecution Cannot Invoke Section 106 Evidence Act To Shift Burden Of Proof Without Establishing Preliminary Facts: Supreme Court

"Insofar as no explanation having been offered by the accused, we find no such circumstance arising since the relatives of the witnesses spoke of the accused being present and having attempted to douse the fire." Supreme Court, in a judgment dated August 11, 2026, held that the prosecution cannot invoke the rule of burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to seek an explanation from an accused husband when preliminary facts establishing his exclusive presence or culpability are absent.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside concurrent convictions under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing that the foundational circumstances of the crime must be conclusively proved by the prosecution before any adverse inference can be drawn against the defense.

The case arose from an incident on May 6, 2013, where a woman suffered fatal burn injuries inside her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that an alcoholic husband, enraged after stealing money kept by his wife, poured kerosene and set her ablaze. The Trial Court convicted the husband and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The state relied heavily on two dying declarations, the post-mortem report showing 96 percent burns, and the failure of the husband to offer an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act for a death occurring inside the marital home.

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution had successfully established homicidal death and foundational facts sufficient to shift the burden of proof onto the accused. The court was also called upon to examine the evidentiary value and consistency of two conflicting dying declarations recorded while the victim suffered from extensive 96 percent burn injuries.

Court Examines Nature Of Burn Injuries

The court closely scrutinized the post-mortem report, which revealed that the deceased sustained 96 percent burns across almost the entire surface of her body, including her scalp. The bench observed that the presence of burns even on the scalp strongly pointed toward the victim having doused herself with kerosene, raising a viable hypothesis of suicide. "The indication is more of the deceased having doused herself with kerosene, which could have resulted in the burn injuries on the scalp of the head," the bench noted, pointing out the inherent gaps in the prosecution's theory of homicidal assault.

Dying Declarations Found Untrustworthy

Addressing the two dying declarations brought on record, the court noted severe temporal and material discrepancies that rendered them highly suspicious. The first dying declaration, purportedly recorded by a Head Constable who subsequently expired, suffered from grave procedural lapses regarding its delayed registration as an FIR more than fifteen hours later. Furthermore, the medical testimony established that a person suffering from 80 to 90 percent burns could give a coherent statement, casting serious doubt on the reliability of declarations obtained from a victim with 96 percent to 100 percent extensive burns.

Testimony Of Close Relatives Evaluated

The court addressed the depositions of immediate family members, including the sister, cousin, and mother of the deceased, who turned hostile to the prosecution during the trial. The High Court had erroneously brushed aside their testimonies as having been won over by the accused. The Supreme Court clarified that the prosecution failed to declare these witnesses hostile or confront them with their previous Section 161 statements through the investigating officer. "Their testimony before Court is what has to be relied on for conviction or acquittal and earlier versions have to be put to the witnesses and the contradictions elicited," the bench underscored, noting that the witnesses actually supported the presence of the accused attempting to save the victim.

Inapplicability Of Section 106 Evidence Act

Rejecting the state's reliance on the absence of explanation by the husband under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the court held that the provision cannot be used to bridge gaps in the prosecution's case. Since the evidence brought on record indicated that the accused was present at the scene and actively attempted to douse the fire, no adverse inference could be drawn against him. The foundational requirement of proving exclusive control or a crime committed behind closed doors without explanation was entirely absent in the facts of the case.

Benefit Of Doubt Extended To Appellant

Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove a single incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, the court granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court were found to be legally unsustainable due to lingering doubts over whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, ordering the immediate release of the appellant from custody if not required in any other case.

Date of Decision: 11 August 2026