Supreme Court Acquits Husband in Wife’s Death Case Citing Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence: Nagendra Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2021) INSC 597 (14 September 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 597
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a post-mortem report, especially when other evidence suggests an alternative explanation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a husband was accused of murdering his wife. The court ultimately overturned the conviction, emphasizing the importance of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. This judgment highlights the principle that the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution, and the accused’s failure to explain certain facts does not automatically lead to a guilty verdict. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

On November 18, 2011, it was reported that Nagendra Sah’s wife had died due to burn injuries. Initially, an Unnatural Death Case (U.D. case) was registered. However, the post-mortem report revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to pressure around the neck, not burns. This led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) on August 25, 2012, for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later, a charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing disappearance of evidence of offence, was added. The prosecution argued that Nagendra Sah was responsible for his wife’s death.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Nagendra Sah under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Judicature at Patna upheld this conviction. Nagendra Sah then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the concurrent verdicts of the lower courts.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
• Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that whoever desires any Court to give a judgment as to a liability dependent on the existence of facts, he must prove that those facts exist.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116].

Arguments

Appellant’s (Nagendra Sah) Submissions:

• The conviction is solely based on the post-mortem report, which indicates asphyxia as the cause of death.
• None of the independent witnesses supported the prosecution’s case.
• The prosecution witnesses testified that the appellant and the deceased had a normal, cordial relationship.
• The mother of the deceased (PW No.5) stated that the incident occurred when the deceased was boiling milk for her child.
• The First Information Report (FIR) was registered belatedly, despite the post-mortem report being available much earlier.
• The prosecution has not established a complete chain of events to prove the appellant’s guilt.

Respondent’s (State of Bihar) Submissions:

• The post-mortem report and the testimony of the doctor (PW No.9) clearly indicate that the death was due to asphyxia, not burns.
• The appellant and the deceased were living together, thus Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applies, placing the burden on the appellant to explain the cause of death.
• The appellant’s claim that the death was due to accidental burn injuries is false.
• The prosecution has established a chain of circumstances that points to the appellant’s guilt.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered whether the conviction of the appellant was justified based on the available evidence. Specifically, the Court examined:

1. Whether the conviction could be solely based on the post-mortem report, especially when other witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
2. Whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused.
3. Whether Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was correctly applied in this case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]: This case laid down the five golden principles (Panchsheel) governing cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer [(1956) SCR 199]: This case clarified the scope and applicability of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 11 SCC 685]: This case held that a conviction cannot be based solely on a post-mortem report.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities, ultimately concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court also examined how each authority was viewed:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]* The Court applied the principles laid down in this case to assess the circumstantial evidence.
• Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer [(1956) SCR 199]* The Court used this case to clarify that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof.
• Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 11 SCC 685]* The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the post-mortem report alone is not sufficient for conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the failure of the prosecution to establish the basic facts necessary to invoke Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution, and the accused’s failure to explain certain facts does not automatically lead to a guilty verdict. The Court also highlighted that the post-mortem report alone is insufficient for conviction. The Court was also concerned by the fact that the FIR was registered belatedly without proper explanation.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the accused’s false explanation could be an additional link in the chain of circumstances. However, the Court clarified that a false explanation can only be considered if the prosecution has already established a substantial chain of evidence. In this case, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary links.

The Court emphasized that “the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established” and that “the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.” The Court also noted that “falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed.”

The Court, therefore, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the circumstances established by the prosecution did not lead to only one possible inference regarding the guilt of the appellant-accused.

The Court also noted that the First Information Report (FIR) was registered belatedly, without any explanation for the delay.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and acquitted Nagendra Sah.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction cannot be based solely on a post-mortem report; other evidence must support the prosecution’s case.
• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points only to the guilt of the accused.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not shift the primary burden of proof from the prosecution; it applies only when the prosecution has established a basic set of facts.
• The accused’s failure to explain certain facts does not automatically lead to a guilty verdict.
• The delay in registering an FIR without proper explanation can weaken the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Nagendra Sah, be set at liberty forthwith and that his bail bonds be discharged, unless he was required in connection with any other case.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution and that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a post-mortem report. The judgment also clarifies that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Nagendra Sah underscores the importance of a thorough investigation and the establishment of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. The judgment serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused’s failure to provide an explanation does not automatically equate to guilt. The Court’s emphasis on the limitations of relying solely on a post-mortem report further highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to criminal justice.