Pranav B Prem

In the Kerala High Court's judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 82 of 2019, the court addressed the role of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. This section places the burden of explanation on the accused when the facts related to the crime are exclusively within their knowledge. Failure to discharge this burden serves as a significant link in the chain of evidence pointing towards the accused's guilt, held the Kerala High Court.

"In the present case, admittedly the accused has not offered any explanation as to how his wife has sustained the fatal injuries, which is a fact within his exclusive knowledge, and has thus failed in discharging the burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If so, we are of the view that the said factor will act as an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against the accused." 

The Case and Its Circumstances

The appellant, convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife, challenged the trial court's decision. The prosecution's case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, with the following key elements:

1. The accused was last seen with the deceased at the time of the alleged crime .
2. The accused failed to provide any explanation for how the victim sustained fatal injuries.
3. The presence of the victim's blood on the clothing of the accused.

Section 106 of the Evidence Act: A Legal Perspective

Section 106 of the Evidence Act states: "When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him." This provision does not shift the general burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. However, it compels the accused to explain facts within their exclusive knowledge, particularly in cases where circumstantial evidence links them to the crime.

Application in the Present Case

The court noted the following circumstances in which Section 106 played a pivotal role:

1. The accused was the only person present with the deceased during the relevant time. Despite this, he did not offer any explanation as to how the deceased sustained the injuries that led to her death. This omission directly invoked the application of Section 106, as the facts surrounding the fatal injuries were exclusively within his knowledge.

2. The judgment emphasized that the accused's failure to explain how the deceased sustained injuries became an additional link in the chain of circumstances against him. This link strengthened the prosecution's case by showing the accused's probable involvement in the crime.

3. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [(2006) 12 SCC 254], which held that when an accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for facts exclusively within their knowledge, it constitutes an additional link in circumstantial evidence cases. Similarly, the court referenced Nizam v. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 1 SCC 550], which affirmed that the "last seen theory" shifts the evidentiary burden to the accused.

Importance in Circumstantial Evidence Cases

In the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial cases rely heavily on forming an unbroken chain of events pointing exclusively to the accused's guilt. Section 106 assists the prosecution in bridging gaps in the chain by obligating the accused to provide plausible explanations for circumstances under their control. When the accused fails to fulfill this duty, their silence becomes a factor against them. 

Cause Title: Valsalan V/S State of Kerala

Case No: Crl.A No. 82 of 2019

Date: December-20-2024

Bench: Jusitce Raja Vijayaraghavan, Justice P.V Balakrishnan

[Read/Download order]