Section 106 Evidence Act Inference Applies As Accused Fails To Explain In-House Death; Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Minor Daughter Strangulation Case Despite Mother Turning Hostile
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a man for killing his 17-year-old daughter, whom he suspected of being involved with a boy from the neighbourhood. The Court observed that although the mother, who was the informant, retracted her earlier account during trial, the circumstantial material—together with the accused-father’s inability to account for the death occurring inside the home, attracting Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act—firmly established his role in the offence. The case centred on the allegation that the father strangled his daughter during the night inside their residence, and the Bench affirmed that the evidence supported the trial court’s decision to convict him under Section 302 IPC.
The matter arose from a complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased, reporting that her 17-year-old daughter had died after being strangled inside their home during the night. She stated that the incident occurred following disagreements between the daughter and her father regarding her interactions with a boy from their locality. Based on this written complaint, the police registered an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and began investigation. The inquest was carried out at the district hospital, where the body had been taken, and post-mortem examination later confirmed death due to ante-mortem strangulation.
During investigation, officers recorded statements of family members and other witnesses, prepared site plans, arrested the accused, and recovered a cloth string said to have been used in the act. The post-mortem doctor noted injuries consistent with strangulation. Statements of witnesses were taken under Section 161 CrPC. Several prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, later retracted their earlier statements during trial and were declared hostile.
The defence denied involvement and disputed the veracity of the prosecution evidence. The statutory provisions discussed in the judgment included Section 302 IPC, Section 374(2) CrPC relating to the appeal, and Sections 106 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the burden of explaining facts within special knowledge and admissibility of discoveries made pursuant to information given by an accused.
The High Court scrutinized the evidentiary record and noted that PW-3, the scribe, had written the complaint on the complainant-mother’s dictation. He testified that he read the contents back to her and that she then signed it. The Court recorded that the signature on the written complaint matched the signature she later placed on her deposition sheet, thereby confirming the authenticity of the initial accusation lodged before the police.
The Court observed that although the complainant turned hostile during trial, she admitted that she, the accused, and the deceased were sleeping in the house on the night of the incident. It found inconsistencies between her testimony and the established documentary record, stating that “the complainant has given a false evidence, which is proved and she had also not fallen unconscious and she had taken her daughter to the District Hospital after the incident.”
The Bench examined the appellant’s statement under Section 313 CrPC, noting that he acknowledged being present in the house but did not explain the manner of his daughter’s death. The Court referenced his statement that “he was present at home, when the police had come, who wake him up and informed that his daughter has died,” and observed that this conflicted with the proven fact that the complainant herself had approached the police station to lodge the report.
The Court recorded that the physical evidence supported the prosecution version, noting that “the cloth string was recovered on the pointing of the appellant…Recovery memo is also signed by the appellant.” It found the site plans and inquest report consistent with the allegation that the death occurred inside the residence. Medical evidence corroborated this, with the post-mortem concluding “Asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation.”
In addressing the legal standard applicable to cases based on circumstantial evidence, the Court cited the principle that “the facts and circumstances so established should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but they also must entirely be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.” It additionally quoted the requirement that “there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”
Regarding Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Bench reiterated the statutory rule that “the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” It also cited the view that “the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation…can serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.”
After evaluating all material on record, the Court recorded its core finding that “all the relevant facts showing killing of the daughter of the appellant by him are proved and, admittedly, he was in the house at the time of death of his daughter.”
The Court directed that “The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. is upheld and the sentence awarded to him under Section 302 I.P.C. is confirmed. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Anurag Singh Chauhan, Shameem Jahan
Case Title: Raju Batham Versus State of U.P.
Neutral Citation:2025:AHC-LKO:76710-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1434 of 2016
Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar, Justice Rajeev Singh
