Section 106 presumption cannot apply absent proof the accused resided at the crime scene.

The appellant, A2, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The deceased’s body was found in the backyard of A1’s house, where the prosecution alleged that A1 and A2 had attacked her.

The trial court relied on an answer given by PW8 in cross-examination and invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

On appeal, the High Court noted that the examined witnesses did not support the allegation that A2 had attacked the deceased, and that the prosecution had not established that A2 lived in A1’s house.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that A2 participated in the murder.

Whether Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act could be applied against A2 without evidence that he resided in A1’s house at the relevant time.

Section 302 IPC criminalises murder.

Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, a fact especially within a person’s knowledge may call for an explanation from that person; however, the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts before the burden of explanation can shift.

The provision cannot, by itself, establish guilt or cure the absence of evidence connecting an accused to the offence.

The Court found no eyewitness evidence implicating A2, and the prosecution had not shown that he lived in the house where the body was found.

Without that foundational fact, A2 could not be required to explain what occurred there, and the trial court had erred in invoking Section 106.

PW8’s isolated answer in cross-examination was not substantive evidence sufficient to establish A2’s guilt; moreover, the knife allegedly seized from A2 was not shown to bear bloodstains or a blood group linking it to the offence.

The evidence therefore did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It directed that any fine paid be refunded and closed the petition for suspension of sentence.