E-Paper
Burden of proof: SC warns against rigidity
The Supreme Court reinstated a murder conviction, emphasizing the need for accountability in serious crimes despite traditional burdens of proof.
The Supreme Court has held that the traditional rule relating to the prosecution’s burden of proof in criminal cases cannot be applied in a “pedantic” manner, cautioning that such rigidity would allow offenders in serious offences to go unpunished while society becomes the casualty.
A bench of justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe made the observation while restoring the conviction of a Madhya Pradesh man who murdered his daughter-in-law 27 years ago but was acquitted by the state high court. The top court said that while the prosecution must ordinarily prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, Section 106 of the Evidence Act requires an accused to explain facts especially within their knowledge, and failure to do so can strengthen the prosecution’s case.
“The traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution cannot be allowed to be wrapped in a pedantic coverage; the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty,” held the bench, adding that the false explanation offered by the accused was an additional link in the chain of circumstances proving his guilt.
The court was deciding the state’s appeal against a 2010 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had set aside the conviction of Janved Singh and his son Mahesh Singh for the dowry death of Janved’s daughter-in-law, Pushpa. The sessions court had earlier sentenced Janved to life imprisonment for murder, dowry harassment and destroying evidence.
Pushpa, married to Mahesh, was found dead in her home in December 1997. Her father-in-law, Janved, told police she died of electrocution while ironing clothes. But the post-mortem revealed ligature marks consistent with strangulation, while the burn injuries were post-mortem. The trial court found the electrocution theory “wholly fabricated” and held her death to be homicidal.
However, the high court overturned the conviction, doubting the prosecution’s evidence and finding no proof that the death occurred within seven years of marriage -- a requirement for dowry death under Section 304B of the IPC. It also faulted the delay in recording statements of Pushpa’s parents and the belated seizure of the wedding invitation card.
Reversing the high court’s verdict, the Supreme Court, in its judgment last week, said it ignored material evidence and failed to consider the reasons that weighed with the trial court. The bench emphasised that when a death occurs within the confines of a house, and the accused offers a false explanation, such falsity becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing to guilt.
“The accused lodged a false report of electrocution and attempted to mislead the investigation. The explanation that he returned from the field to find the deceased dead is not supported by any witness. Once the prosecution proved that the death occurred in his house, the burden was on him to explain the circumstances, which he failed to do,” it noted.
The bench further held that the evidence, including the doctor’s testimony confirming strangulation, the false report of electrocution, strained marital relations and persistent dowry demands, formed a complete and unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt.
Setting aside the high court’s acquittal, the bench ordered that Janved Singh be taken into custody immediately to serve the remainder of his life sentence.
“The law often steps into homes not to witness celebration, but to lift the veil from grief,” the court poignantly remarked, underscoring that while courts must be cautious in overturning acquittals, they cannot let the guilty escape on technicalities when the evidence clearly points to culpability.
