Legal Provisions Involved: Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Judgement By: Supreme Court of India.

Judge/Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Facts

The appellant was accused of murder based only on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution claimed that he was last seen with the deceased before the body was found. There was no clear evidence of motive, recovery, or conduct pointing towards his guilt. The Trial Court convicted him by drawing an adverse inference under Section 106 because he could not explain how he separated from the deceased. The High Court also upheld this conviction.

Key Legal Provisions

Section 106 applies to facts that are within a person’s special knowledge. Sections 302 and 201 deal with murder and destruction of evidence.

Issues Raised

Whether an accused can be convicted by shifting the burden of proof onto him under Section 106 without strong evidence from the prosecution?

Arguments of the Case

The accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case fully and wrongly used Section 106 to cover missing evidence.

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must first prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Section 106 cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution case. Since the case relied only on weak “last seen” evidence, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.