Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has restored the conviction of an accused previously acquitted by the High Court in a case concerning the alleged murder of his wife. The Court referred to the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Section 106, which places the burden of proof on the accused when facts are within their exclusive knowledge. The trial court had found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment while also convicting him under Section 201 IPC for the destruction of evidence. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court, upon examining the evidence, held that the trial court’s findings should be reinstated.

The case arose from allegations that the accused strangled his wife and cremated her body in secrecy. The prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of the deceased’s seven-year-old daughter, who stated that she saw her father press her mother’s neck with his foot, leading to her death. She further testified that her father cremated the body at night without informing their relatives or the villagers.

According to the prosecution, on the night of July 15, 2003, Bhoora Singh, the complainant, along with his father, reported hearing distressing cries from the accused’s house, which stopped abruptly. The following morning, the complainant learned that the woman had died and had already been cremated. Upon further inquiry, the deceased’s daughter stated that her father had caused her mother’s death and subsequently burned the body.

The trial court, after examining the evidence, found that the accused had strangled his wife and then cremated her body in an attempt to conceal the crime. The court noted that the clandestine cremation and the accused’s flight from the scene were incriminating factors. Relying on the testimony of the minor daughter and other witnesses, the trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for murder and imposed an additional sentence for the destruction of evidence.

The High Court, while hearing the case, questioned the reliability of the child witness’s testimony due to an 18-day delay in recording her statement. The court considered the possibility that the witness had been tutored, especially since she was residing with her maternal uncle, who had an ongoing dispute with the accused. Additionally, the High Court identified inconsistencies in the statements of other prosecution witnesses regarding their knowledge of the events leading up to the incident.

The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court and held that the testimony of a child witness should not be disregarded solely due to a delay in recording the statement. The Court stated, "The testimony of a child witness should not be rejected outright. If, upon careful scrutiny, it inspires confidence, there is no legal bar to relying on such evidence." The Court further noted that minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not necessarily render them unreliable, particularly when the core facts remain consistent.

The Court also examined the legal principles governing circumstantial evidence, stating that "when the prosecution establishes circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, the burden shifts to the accused to provide an alternative explanation, particularly when the incident occurs within their exclusive domain." The judgment referred to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the accused when the facts in question are within their special knowledge.

The Court observed that the accused’s actions—cremating the body without informing family members and subsequently fleeing—were significant factors requiring explanation. The judgment noted, "The clandestine cremation of the deceased without informing her relatives, coupled with the accused’s subsequent disappearance, constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance requiring explanation from the accused." Since the accused did not provide a satisfactory explanation, the Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court referred to established legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence, citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. It reiterated that to convict an accused based on circumstantial evidence, the following conditions must be met:

• The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn must be clearly established.

• The circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and must point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused.

• The circumstances should form a complete chain, ruling out any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.

• The evidence must be incapable of any other explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused.

The Court also referred to Dharm Das Wadhwani v. State of U.P. (1974) 4 SCC 267, stating that "The rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges must take a practical view of legitimate inferences flowing from evidence, circumstantial or direct." It stated that courts should not allow serious crimes to go unpunished due to procedural technicalities or minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal and restored the trial court’s conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The accused was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2012
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

[Read/Download order]