Section 106 Evidence Act cannot substitute for prosecution’s failure to prove the accused’s presence.

Sadhna, wife of appellant Arun Kumar, was found dead in the matrimonial house on 2 August 2010.

Her father lodged an FIR alleging that Arun Kumar, his mother Shrivati Devi, sister-in-law Poonam @ Lado, and brothers Arvind Kumar and Satendra Kumar had demanded a four-wheeler as dowry and subjected Sadhna to cruelty.

The post-mortem recorded an abraded contusion and a ligature mark, with a fractured hyoid bone; the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation.

Initially, the police charge-sheeted only Arun Kumar under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while exonerating the other family members.

During trial, the Sessions Court summoned the other accused under Section 319 CrPC and subsequently framed charges against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302/149 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Trial Court convicted all the accused under Sections 498-A and 302/149 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and imposed sentences including life imprisonment for murder.

During the pendency of the appeal, Shrivati Devi died and the appeal abated against her.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Arun Kumar and the other appellants committed Sadhna’s homicidal death and were liable under Sections 302/149 IPC?

Whether the evidence established a dowry demand and cruelty sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?

Whether the prosecution proved Arun Kumar’s presence in the house so as to permit invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act?

Whether the testimonies of the deceased’s parents were reliable despite material inconsistencies concerning the date of marriage, the parties’ living arrangements, the dowry demand and their arrival at the matrimonial house?

The Court applied Sections 498-A and 302/149 IPC concerning cruelty by the husband or relatives and liability for murder committed by members of an unlawful assembly, together with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act concerning demanding dowry.

It applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, holding that the provision does not shift the prosecution’s primary burden and can be invoked only after the prosecution establishes foundational incriminating circumstances, particularly facts that are specially within the accused’s knowledge.

Relying on Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Umar, State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, P. Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh, Jose alias Pappachan v. Sub-Inspector of Police and Dr. (Smt.) Nupur Talwar v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that Section 106 cannot be used to compensate for failure to prove the accused’s presence or guilt, and that grave suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court found that the prosecution’s allegation that all accused lived together was contradicted by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 themselves. Their cross-examinations established that Arun Kumar and Sadhna had lived separately at different rented premises and ultimately in a separate house where Sadhna’s body was found.

The defence evidence also consistently supported separate residence and Arun Kumar’s absence from the house at the relevant time; this evidence was not materially discredited by the prosecution.

The Court further held that PW-1 and PW-2 were unreliable on material particulars. Their assertion that the marriage had occurred approximately six years before the incident was inconsistent with the marriage invitation card and the sale deed dated 3 May 2002 describing Sadhna as Arun Kumar’s wife, indicating that the marriage had taken place nearly eight years earlier.

Their account of whether they reached the house by Tonga or motorcycle was also inconsistent.

Apart from their uncorroborated statements, there was no supporting evidence of a demand for a four-wheeler or of dowry-related cruelty.

Although the medical evidence established an unnatural and likely homicidal death by strangulation, it did not establish that Arun Kumar or the other appellants caused it.

The prosecution failed to prove Arun Kumar’s presence in the house when the death occurred. Consequently, the foundational facts necessary for applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act were absent; the Court held that it could not presume that Arun Kumar was present merely because Sadhna died in a house associated with him.

The prosecution therefore failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances or the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal abated against appellant Shrivati Devi due to her death.

Arun Kumar, Poonam @ Lado, Arvind Kumar and Satendra Kumar were acquitted of all charges.

As they were on bail, they were not required to surrender, and their bail bonds and sureties were discharged.