An accused’s silence may reinforce guilt only after the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.

Chinta Devi, the appellant’s wife, was found dead with fatal injuries in the couple’s matrimonial home on 4 February 2012.

Her family members testified that the appellant’s brother had informed them of a quarrel between the couple; on reaching the house, they saw the appellant with an axe and the deceased’s body inside.

The doctor attributed death to injuries caused by a hard and blunt substance.

The axe was seized but was not produced at trial or sent for forensic examination, and the appellant’s brother was not examined.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.

He appealed, arguing, among other things, that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient and the prosecution had not proved motive.

1. Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, or suffered from an error of law warranting appellate interference

2. Whether, after the prosecution established the circumstances surrounding the death, the appellant’s failure to explain how his wife died in their home could be considered under Section 106 of the Evidence Act

Section 302 IPC governs the offence of murder.

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rely on a weakness in the defence to cure deficiencies in its own case.

Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of explaining a fact especially within a person’s knowledge may arise once the prosecution has discharged its initial burden and established a prima facie case; Section 106 cannot substitute for proof of the offence by the prosecution.

The Court relied on Anees v. State Government of N.C.T., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 757, for these principles.

The Court treated the family witnesses’ consistent evidence as establishing that the appellant and deceased had been quarrelling shortly before the death, that the appellant was present at the house and was seen with an axe, and that the deceased’s body was found there with fatal injuries.

It also noted that the appellant did not dispute his presence or offer an explanation for the homicidal death in the matrimonial home.

The Court held that these circumstances established a prima facie case, permitting the absence of an explanation to be considered under Section 106—not as a substitute for the prosecution’s burden, but as an additional link in the circumstances.

It further held that proof of motive was not essential in the circumstances of this case.

It dismissed the appeal, leaving the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment with fine undisturbed.