Brief Facts
- The allegations on the accused were that the Accused took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, to Haiderpur Canal, strangulated them, and threw the dead bodies into the canal; and the accused thereafter, attempted to project as if it were a case of accidental drowning. It was also alleged that the appellant was a drunkard, who doubted the chastity of his wife and suspected that the children were not his sons.
- After recovery of the dead bodies and their post-mortem examination, it was revealed that the children did not die because of drowning but the cause of death had been asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation.
- The Accused was convicted by the Trial Court and the same was upheld by the High Court.
Issues
- Who has burden of proving the existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC, which provides protection to a person of unsound mind?
- Relevancy of last seen theory and reverse burden of proof on the accused under section 106 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the attempt of accused to create the false narrative regarding the reason of death of the Children can fortify the case of the prosecution?
- Relevancy of motive in the case of circumstantial evidence?
Held
- The Apex Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Defense of unsound mind - It remains trite that the burden of proving the existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC lies on the accused in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act; and where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence, as duly exemplified by illustration (a) to the said Section 105 of the Evidence Act. As noticed, the mandate of law is that the Court shall presume absence of the circumstances so as to take the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The principles of burden of proof in the context of plea of unsoundness of mind had been stated by this Court in the case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal 58/1962 in the following terms: –
“7. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions: (1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea, and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may rebut it by placing before the court all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged.” - The evidence on record, taken as a whole, at the most shows that the appellant was addicted to alcohol and was admitted to the rehabilitation centre for de-addiction. However, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellant was medically treated as a person of unsound mind or was legally required to be taken as a person of unsound mind. Contrary to the suggestions made on behalf of the appellant, the testimony of PW-3 Jagbir, manager of rehabilitation centre, had been clear and specific that during his stay in the centre, no mental illness was observed in the appellant nor was he treated for any mental illness.
- It is also noticed that the plea of unsoundness of mind and, therefore, the benefit of Section 84 IPC, was never taken in the trial nor any evidence was led in this regard. Significantly, not even a remote suggestion was made to any witness examined for the prosecution about the alleged mental incapacity of the appellant.
Burden on accused u/s 106 of the Evidence Act. - It is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the corresponding burden was heavy on the appellant in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the deceased occurred. There had not been any explanation on the part of the appellant and, as noticed, immediately after the incident, he attempted to create a false narrative of accidental drowning of the children. There had not been any specific response from the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC either.
Importance of motive in the case based on circumstantial evidence - Motive, when proved, supplies additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence thereof cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject the prosecution case; although absence of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused
- We are clearly of the view that when the evidence on record unambiguously proves the guilt of the accused-appellant, the factor relating to motive cannot displace or weaken the conclusions naturally flowing from the evidence. Moreover, the present case cannot be said to be of want of motive altogether. Differently put, in our view, when all the facts and circumstances are taken together, the present one is not a case where there had been any missing link in the chain of circumstances, leading only to the conclusion of the guilt of the appellant.
- As regards the relevancy of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the weight of authorities is on principles that if motive is proved, that would supply another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case, though such an absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.
Relevant Para No.
- 15, 16.4.1, 17.1, 17.3, 21, 23
