Introduction
IT is a significant judgement of supreme court of India concerning the conviction of the appellant under section 302 and 201 of the Indian penal code,1860. The case arose from the death of Nagendra Sah’s wife, the case was initially reported as death cause by burn injuries. However, the post-mortem report stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to pressure around the neck by hand and blunt substance.”. The supreme court examined whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact
On 18th November 2011, it was reported that appellant’s wife died due to burn injuries. On the basis of this information an Unnatural death case was registered on the same day. An autopsy was also conducted on the same day by Dr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari. According to report the cause of death was ‘asphyxia due to pressure around neck by hand and blunt substance’.
“On the basis of this report, an FIR was registered on 25 August 2012.”. F.I.R was registered for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, a charge under Section 201 of IPC was added. The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence.
witnesses stated that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was cordial and that other members of the appellant’s family were present in the house when the incident occurred. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Patna High Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the conviction. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Also Read – Nayara Energy v SAP India: Delhi High Court on Foreign Sanctions and Indian Contracts
Issues
Whether the post mortem repost was sufficient by itself to sustain the appellant’s conviction.
Whether Section 106 can shift the prosecution’s burden of proof, or whether the accused’s failure to explain can complete an otherwise incomplete case.
Whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments of the Appellant
. Conviction of the appellant is based solely on the cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report.
. Prosecution argues that the appellant and the deceased were leading a normal matrimonial life.
Arguments of the State
. The State argued that the appellant’s claim that the deceased died due to accidental fire was false, as the post-mortem report did not support death by burns. “The post-mortem report showed that the cause of death was asphyxia.”
. Since the appellant and deceased lived under the same roof, Section 106 of the Evidence Act applied, and the appellant’s failure to explain the death supported the prosecution’s circumstantial-evidence case.
Judgment
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant. appellant, Nagendra Sah, was acquitted of all charges under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.
It further held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to fill the gaps in the prosecution’s case, and the post-mortem report alone was insufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt.
This article has been researched and prepared by Deepa Thakur, Legal Research Intern at LegalRath.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here)and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications