Failure to prove homicidal death defeats conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution alleged that Mantutia, the deceased daughter of informant Ramdev Sah (PW 7), was subjected to dowry-related cruelty and was killed and burnt at her matrimonial home on the night of 4/5 June 1981 because her father had failed to provide ₹500 and a buffalo.

The surviving appellant, Uttim Sah, the deceased’s husband, was charged under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

The prosecution examined twelve witnesses; however, none was an eyewitness.

PW 7’s account was based on information allegedly given by Halkhori Sah, Jugul Lal Yadav and Mahendra, of whom the first two turned hostile and the third was not examined.

Several other witnesses were hearsay, tendered or formal witnesses, and the Investigating Officer was not examined.

The appellant denied the incriminating circumstances in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not lead defence evidence.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased’s death was homicidal and that the appellant participated in causing her death and burning her body under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC?

Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the alleged dowry demand, matrimonial discord and burning of the deceased’s body, formed a complete and conclusive chain pointing exclusively to the appellant’s guilt?

Whether an adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act merely because he did not explain the circumstances of the deceased’s death?

Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused prejudice sufficient to weaken or invalidate the prosecution case?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code concerning murder, causing disappearance of evidence and joint liability.

It reiterated that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, every incriminating circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.

Hearsay evidence cannot ordinarily prove the truth of the facts asserted unless it falls within a recognised exception; evidence of motive cannot substitute proof of the offence.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to establish foundational facts, including the fact of homicidal death; only thereafter can the burden relating to facts especially within the accused’s knowledge arise, as recognised in Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2022) 5 SCC 438.

Non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not invariably fatal, but becomes significant where it causes substantial prejudice by preventing the defence from proving contradictions, challenging the investigation or clarifying material aspects of the prosecution case, as held in Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 2 SCC 317.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational fact of homicidal death.

No post-mortem examination or reliable scientific evidence proved whether the burns were ante-mortem, whether the deceased had sustained assault-related injuries, or whether the death could have resulted from an accidental fire while cooking.

PW 7 was not an eyewitness and derived his information from PW 10, PW 11 and Mahendra; PW 10 and PW 11 did not support the prosecution, while Mahendra was withheld, rendering the source of PW 7’s information unsubstantiated.

The alleged Panchayati and dowry demand were also inadequately proved because no Panch or participant was examined, and the relevant witnesses supplied, at most, evidence of a possible motive rather than proof of murder.

The seizure evidence was merely formal and, in the absence of the Investigating Officer, did not establish the place of occurrence, the nature of the recovered remains or the investigative steps undertaken.

Since the prosecution had not first proved homicidal death and a complete chain of circumstances, Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be invoked against the appellant.

The chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and legally insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The appeal was accordingly allowed; the judgment of conviction dated 7 July 1995 and order of sentence dated 13 July 1995 were set aside, and Uttim Sah was acquitted of all charges.

As he was on bail, his bail bond was cancelled and his sureties were discharged.