Section 106 Evidence Act | Accused Must Offer Reasonable Explanation If 'Last Seen' With Deceased: Allahabad High Court

"The failure of the accused to offer any reasonable explanation regarding facts which were especially within his knowledge attracts the principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act and provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution." Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in a significant ruling dated March 25, 2026, held that when an accused is last seen alive with the deceased, the failure to offer a plausible explanation regarding how they parted company provides an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against them.

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad observed that while Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof, it explicitly expects the accused to explain facts that remain especially within their knowledge.

The case stems from the murder of one Kandhai in October 2004. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Mahadev, who harboured improper intentions towards the deceased's wife, took the deceased away from his home at night on the pretext of fishing. The deceased never returned, and his dead body was discovered the following morning in a nearby jungle with his throat slit by an axe. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment, prompting the present jail appeal by the accused.

The primary question before the court was whether the chain of circumstantial evidence, particularly relying on the 'last seen' theory, was complete and unerring enough to sustain a conviction. The court was also called upon to determine whether the exact time of death could be conclusively established based on the presence of semi-digested food in the deceased's stomach, and whether minor contradictions in the testimonies of rustic witnesses were fatal to the prosecution's case.

Discussing the foundational law on circumstantial evidence, the court reiterated the 'panchsheel' principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. The bench noted that the prosecution had successfully established the motive, the last seen circumstance, the extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the blood-stained axe, creating a coherent sequence pointing directly to the guilt of the appellant. "It is well settled principle that when the prosecution successfully establishes a chain of circumstances, which is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence, conviction can safely be recorded on the basis of such circumstantial evidence."

Applying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in conjunction with the 'last seen' theory, the court emphasised that the burden shifts to the accused to explain how and when they parted company with the deceased, relying on the Supreme Court's mandate in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram and Nizam v. State of Rajasthan. The bench observed that the accused, during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, merely pleaded false implication due to village factionalism and offered absolutely no explanation regarding the circumstances under which he separated from the deceased. "The circumstance of the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the accused, coupled with the absence of any plausible explanation from the accused, further strengthens the prosecution case."

The defence heavily attacked the post-mortem report, arguing that the presence of 200 grams of semi-digested food in the stomach rendered the prosecution's timeline of the night-time murder doubtful. Rejecting this contention, the high court clarified that the condition of stomach contents is not an infallible guide for determining the exact time of death and must be appreciated alongside the broader evidentiary matrix. Relying on the division bench precedent in Vijay Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the Supreme Court's view in Sheo Darshan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench noted that various physiological factors, including digestion rates and stress, affect stomach contents. "The question of time of death of the victim should not be decided only by taking into consideration the state of food in the stomach. That may be a factor which should be considered along with other evidence, but that fact alone cannot be decisive."

Addressing the alleged discrepancies in the statements of the deceased's wife and brother, the court noted that they were rustic village witnesses who were deposing under severe traumatic circumstances. The court reaffirmed the established precedent from Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh that the legal maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and is merely a rule of caution, observing that minor variations in the sequence of events do not touch the core of the prosecution's case. "A witness placed in such traumatic circumstances is likely to be under severe emotional distress and shock. In such a situation, minor inconsistencies in her answers during cross-examination cannot be treated as contradictions of such magnitude as to discredit her testimony altogether."

The court also evaluated the evidentiary value of the forensic report, which detected human blood on the recovered axe but could not definitively establish the specific blood group. The bench pragmatically observed that since the occurrence pertained to the year 2004, when advanced DNA profiling was not routinely available to investigating agencies, the forensic report could not be discarded merely for lacking blood group specificity. "The alleged lapses in investigation, such as non-examination of certain witnesses or procedural deficiencies, also do not materially affect the prosecution case, inasmuch as the core circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused stand proved by reliable evidence."

Ultimately, the court found that the doubts sought to be created by the defence were neither reasonable nor sufficient to dislodge the unbroken chain of circumstances proved by the State. The bench dismissed the jail appeal, affirmed the 2017 judgment and order of conviction recorded by the trial court, and directed the appellant to serve out the remainder of his life sentence.

Date of Decision: 25 March 2026