Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) recently affirmed a husband's conviction in a case involving the murder of his wife and acts of domestic cruelty against her.

• The court underscored the pivotal role of the Judicial system in securing justice, particularly in matters concerning violence against women in the case of Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand.

What is the Background of the Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand Case?

• The deceased got married to the appellant (Balvir Singh) in 1997.
• It was alleged that soon after their marriage, the appellant along with his mother began subjecting the deceased to various forms of harassment and relentlessly demanded a dowry.
• Upon harassment she was found dead under suspicious circumstances and had reddish marks around her neck.
• Father of the deceased preferred an application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) for registration of First Information Report (FIR) regarding the death of his daughter.
  • Pursuant to the order of JMFC, FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• After registration of FIR, the statements of various witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the CrPC.
• The trial court, as well as the High Court, upheld the husband's conviction under Section 302 of IPC and Section 498-A of IPC, and his mother's conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC was also affirmed.
• Hence, the present appeal was made to SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court took note of the cases:
  • Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1975) in which SC has stated “The rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and must take a practical view of legitimate inferences flowing from evidence, circumstantial or direct” which means the principle of giving the benefit of reasonable doubt doesn't mean being overly hesitant or indecisive and, in such cases, a practical view of the flow of evidence must be taken into account.
  • Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer (1956), the SC emphasized that the term "especially" in Section 106 of IEA underscores facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the accused's knowledge.
  • Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021) SC emphasized that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, an accused's inability to offer a reasonable explanation, as mandated by Section 106, could constitute an additional element in the sequence of events.
• The SC, hence, in the present matter allowed the invocation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), thereby shifting the burden to the accused husband to explain the events surrounding his wife's death.
  • The SC emphasized that the courts should adopt a practical perspective while evaluating evidence, the importance of sensitivity in such cases to ensure that justice prevails, and wrongdoers are held accountable was also stressed upon.
  • The SC stated that “Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer a proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.”
• Thereby, after considering all the facts and evidence before it, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prashant Mishra affirmed the conviction of the appellant (husband) under section 302 and 498-A IPC and mother-in-law under section 498-A IPC respectively.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• Burden of Proof in Criminal Law:
  • In criminal cases, the burden of proof in the majority of cases rests on the prosecution.
  • This means that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the alleged crime.
  • The defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution must present sufficient evidence and arguments to convince the judge or jury of the defendant's guilt.
  • If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, the defendant is entitled to benefit of doubt and is generally acquitted.
  • It's important to note that the burden of proof in criminal cases is much higher than the burden of proof in civil cases, where a preponderance of the probability is often the standard.
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
  • Once the FIR is registered investigation starts, Section 161 of CrPC empowers police to examine witnesses during the course of investigation.
  • Section 161 - Examination of witnesses by police —

(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.

Provided that statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means:

Provided further that the statement of a woman against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 3 [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• • Section 106 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge –– When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
  • This provision places the burden of proof on the person who has exclusive or special knowledge about a particular fact. If there are facts that only a particular person is aware of, it is that person's responsibility to prove those facts. Failure to do so may have implications for their case.
    • Example - If A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
  • The provision does not relieve the prosecution from proving its case beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters.
    • Instead, it deals with situations where certain facts are primarily known to a particular individual, and in such cases, the law places the responsibility of proving those facts on that individual