LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof in a case of homicidal death within a private residence, and whether Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be invoked to shift the burden of explanation to the accused.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Sabitri Samantaray vs. State of Odisha
Judgment Date: 20 May 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 20 May 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 456
Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari, J., Hima Kohli, J.
When a death occurs inside a private residence, who bears the responsibility of explaining the circumstances? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of *Sabitri Samantaray vs. State of Odisha*. The court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven its case against the accused, and whether Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, could be used to shift the burden of explanation to the residents of the house. This judgment clarifies the application of evidentiary principles in cases of homicidal death within private spaces. The bench comprised of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, and Justice Hima Kohli, with the judgment authored by Justice Krishna Murari.
Case Background
On July 21, 2008, Mayadhar Mohapana, the landlord of the accused, filed a First Information Report (FIR) stating that unknown persons had attacked his tenants, Sabitri Samantaray and Bidyadhar Praharaj (the appellants). According to the landlord, he heard cries from the rented portion of his house and found the appellants being assaulted by an unknown person. The landlord rescued the couple through an interconnected door, while the assailant remained inside. The police arrived at the scene and found the unknown person dead in the kitchen. Initially, it was suspected that the person had committed suicide by consuming poison. However, a post-mortem examination revealed that the death was homicidal in nature, caused by compression of the neck and assault with blunt objects and acid. The deceased was later identified as Sanjay Rana, who had a relationship with the appellants’ daughter.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 21 July 2008 | Landlord, Mayadhar Mohapana, files FIR about an attack on his tenants. |
| 21 July 2008 | Police find an unknown person dead in the kitchen of the appellants’ house. |
| 24 July 2008 | Deceased is identified as Sanjay Rana. |
| Post-mortem | Post-mortem examination reveals the death was homicidal. |
| 30 March 2015 | Sessions Court convicts the appellants and their daughter. |
| 8 November 2016 | High Court acquits the daughter but upholds the conviction of the appellants, modifying the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304(II). |
| 20 May 2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Court of Jajpur convicted the appellants, Sabitri Samantaray and Bidyadhar Praharaj, along with their daughter, for offences under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, while their daughter was convicted under Sections 302, 109 (abetment), read with Section 34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court of Odisha acquitted the daughter, observing that she was not present at the scene of the offense and had no role in the incident. However, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants but modified the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304(II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC. The sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
Legal Framework
The case involves several key legal provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen the offender.
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
- 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.
These provisions are part of India’s criminal justice system, which aims to ensure that those who commit crimes are held accountable while also protecting the rights of the accused. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is particularly relevant in this case, as it deals with situations where the facts are within the special knowledge of the accused.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the High Court misconstrued Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by relying on it in the absence of clear evidence pointing to their guilt. They contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the High Court should not have used Section 106 to shift the burden of proof. They cited the case of *Shambu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer* to support their claim.
- The appellants argued that the High Court erred in convicting them based entirely on circumstantial evidence and dismissed their contention regarding the disputed time of death of the deceased, despite the lack of any eye-witnesses.
- They further contended that the High Court failed to consider that the post-mortem report indicated that the deceased’s death occurred when the appellants were hospitalized due to injuries they sustained from being assaulted by the deceased.
- The appellants also argued that the High Court incorrectly relied on their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which are inadmissible as evidence. They cited *Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishnan Singla* and *Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr.* in support of this argument.
- Finally, the appellants submitted that the High Court failed to identify any specific incident indicating their participation in the death of the deceased and that the judgment lacked any prima facie finding that would indicate their participation in the event leading to the death of the deceased.
Respondent (State)’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the High Court rightly relied on admitted facts, credible evidence, the relationship between the parties (especially the deceased and the appellants’ daughter), their telephonic contacts, exchange of money, and the presence of the appellants inside the house to conclude that the incident occurred as alleged by the prosecution.
- The State contended that the High Court correctly observed that the initial set of witnesses failed to provide a complete narration of events, while the second set of witnesses established the relationship between the deceased and the appellants, which was partially accepted by the appellants’ husband and daughter.
- It was argued that since the appellants were the only individuals present at the scene of the offense, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was rightly invoked due to their special knowledge of the events. The State cited *Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan* to support the reliance on Section 106.
- The State also relied on *Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra*, which observed that in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside a house, the burden on the prosecution is lighter, and there is a corresponding burden on the inmates to provide a cogent explanation of the crime.
- The State submitted that the medical expert’s deposition did not mention that the deceased died when the appellants were hospitalized. Additionally, it was argued that minor contradictions in witness statements should not invalidate the entire evidence produced by the prosecution.
- The State concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events beyond a reasonable doubt, showing that the deceased was strangled by the appellants, and an attempt was made to conceal his identity by pouring acid on the body.
Submissions of the Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Burden of Proof | ✓ Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ✓ Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was misconstrued. ✓ High Court wrongly shifted the burden of proof. ✓ Relied on *Shambu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer* |
✓ High Court rightly relied on admitted facts and evidence. ✓ Appellants had special knowledge under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. ✓ Relied on *Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan* |
| Circumstantial Evidence | ✓ High Court erred in convicting based on circumstantial evidence. ✓ No eye-witnesses to the incident. ✓ Disputed time of death was not considered. |
✓ Chain of events was established beyond reasonable doubt. ✓ Presence of appellants at the scene of the offense. |
| Post-mortem Report | ✓ Post-mortem report indicated death occurred when appellants were hospitalized. | ✓ Medical expert’s deposition did not support appellants’ claim. |
| Statements under Section 313 CrPC | ✓ High Court incorrectly relied on statements under Section 313 CrPC. ✓ Relied on *Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishnan Singla* and *Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr.* |
|
| Participation in the Incident | ✓ No specific incident indicating appellants’ participation. ✓ No prima facie finding of participation. |
✓ Appellants were the only ones present at the scene. ✓ Motive was established through witness testimonies. ✓ Relied on *Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra* |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The key issue framed by the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof, and that the chain of events has been successfully established so as to attract application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof, and that the chain of events has been successfully established so as to attract application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. | Yes, the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof. | The Court found that the prosecution had established a chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The presence of the accused at the scene, along with the motive and nature of injuries, indicated their involvement. Once the prosecution established this chain, the burden shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to explain how the deceased lost his life. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- Shambu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer [1956 SCR 199] – This case was cited by the appellants to argue that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be used to shift the burden of proof.
- Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishnan Singla [(2005) 9 SCC 15] – This case was cited by the appellants to argue that answers to questions under Section 313 CrPC are inadmissible as evidence and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution.
- Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr. [(2002) 10 SCC 236] – This case was also cited by the appellants to argue that answers to questions under Section 313 CrPC are inadmissible as evidence and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution.
- Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 10 SCC 21] – This case was cited by the respondent to support the claim that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be invoked when the accused have special knowledge of the facts.
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681] – This case was cited by the respondent to argue that when an offense like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden on the prosecution is lighter, and there is a corresponding burden on the inmates to provide an explanation.
- Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 4 SCC 393] – This case was cited by the Court to summarize the rule that the initial burden of proof is on the prosecution, but in cases of “last seen together,” the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen the offender.
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
- 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.
Use of Authorities by the Court
| Authority | Court | How Used |
|---|---|---|
| Shambu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer [1956 SCR 199] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; the court held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not relieve the prosecution of its initial burden, but it applies when the prosecution establishes a chain of events. |
| Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishnan Singla [(2005) 9 SCC 15] | Supreme Court of India | Acknowledged the principle but did not find it applicable to the facts of the case. |
| Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr. [(2002) 10 SCC 236] | Supreme Court of India | Acknowledged the principle but did not find it applicable to the facts of the case. |
| Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 10 SCC 21] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; the court affirmed that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applies when the accused have special knowledge of the facts. |
| Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; the court reiterated that in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside a house, the burden on the prosecution is lighter, and there is a corresponding burden on the inmates to provide an explanation. |
| Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 4 SCC 393] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; the court used this case to summarize the rule regarding the burden of proof in “last seen together” cases and the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Indian Penal Code | Discussed in the context of the initial charge of murder, which was later modified to culpable homicide. |
| Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Indian Penal Code | Applied as the final conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. |
| Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Indian Penal Code | Applied in the context of causing disappearance of evidence. |
| Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Indian Penal Code | Applied to establish the common intention of the accused. |
| Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Indian Evidence Act | Central to the judgment; the court explained its application and how it shifts the burden of explanation to the accused. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ claim that the High Court misconstrued Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by relying on it in the absence of clear evidence pointing to their guilt. | The Court held that Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its initial burden but applies when the prosecution establishes a chain of events. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused. |
| Appellants’ argument that the High Court erred in convicting them based entirely on circumstantial evidence and dismissed their contention regarding the disputed time of death of the deceased, despite the lack of any eye-witnesses. | The Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The Court noted that the presence of the accused at the scene of the offense, along with the motive and nature of injuries, indicated their involvement. |
| Appellants’ contention that the High Court failed to consider that the post-mortem report indicated that the deceased’s death occurred when the appellants were hospitalized due to injuries they sustained from being assaulted by the deceased. | The Court rejected this argument, noting that the medical expert’s deposition did not support the claim that the deceased died when the appellants were hospitalized. |
| Appellants’ argument that the High Court incorrectly relied on their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which are inadmissible as evidence. | The Court acknowledged the principle that statements under Section 313 CrPC are inadmissible as evidence but did not find it to be a ground for overturning the conviction. |
| Appellants’ submission that the High Court failed to identify any specific incident indicating their participation in the death of the deceased and that the judgment lacked any prima facie finding that would indicate their participation in the event leading to the death of the deceased. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the entire chain of events pointed towards the guilt of the accused. The Court noted that the appellants had failed to offer any credible defense in this regard. |
| Respondent’s argument that the High Court rightly relied on admitted facts, credible evidence, the relationship between the parties, their telephonic contacts, exchange of money, and the presence of the appellants inside the house to conclude that the incident occurred as alleged by the prosecution. | The Court agreed with the respondent, noting that the High Court had correctly analyzed the evidence and found it credible. |
| Respondent’s contention that the High Court correctly observed that the initial set of witnesses failed to provide a complete narration of events, while the second set of witnesses established the relationship between the deceased and the appellants, which was partially accepted by the appellants’ husband and daughter. | The Court concurred with the respondent, stating that the High Court had rightly distinguished between the testimonies of the different sets of witnesses. |
| Respondent’s argument that since the appellants were the only individuals present at the scene of the offense, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was rightly invoked due to their special knowledge of the events. | The Court upheld the High Court’s finding that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was rightly invoked due to the special knowledge of the appellants. |
| Respondent’s reliance on *Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra*, which observed that in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside a house, the burden on the prosecution is lighter, and there is a corresponding burden on the inmates to provide a cogent explanation of the crime. | The Court agreed with the respondent’s reliance on this case, stating that the principle was applicable to the facts of the present case. |
| Respondent’s submission that the medical expert’s deposition did not mention that the deceased had died when the appellants were hospitalized. Additionally, it was argued that minor contradictions in witness statements should not invalidate the entire evidence produced by the prosecution. | The Court found the respondent’s submissions to be valid and stated that the evidence produced by the prosecution was consistent and credible. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Shambu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer [1956 SCR 199] | The Court distinguished this case, stating that while the prosecution has the initial burden, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applies when a chain of events is established. |
| Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishnan Singla [(2005) 9 SCC 15] | The Court acknowledged the principle that statements under Section 313 CrPC are inadmissible but did not find it applicable to the facts of the case. |
| Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr. [(2002) 10 SCC 236] | The Court acknowledged the principle that statements under Section 313 CrPC are inadmissible but did not find it applicable to the facts of the case. |
| Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 10 SCC 21] | The Court followed this case, affirming that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applies when the accused have special knowledge of the facts. |
| Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681] | The Court followed this case, reiterating that in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside a house, the burden on the prosecution is lighter, and there is a corresponding burden on the inmates to provide an explanation. |
| Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 4 SCC 393] | The Court followed this case to summarize the rule regarding the burden of proof in “last seen together” cases and the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following points:
- Chain of Events: The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of events that strongly pointed towards the guilt of the accused. This included the presence of the accused at the scene of the offense, the motive for the crime, and the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased.
- Special Knowledge: The Court emphasized that the accused were the only individuals present at the scene of the offense, and therefore, they had special knowledge of the events that led to the death of the deceased. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden shifted to the accused to provide an explanation.
- Lack of Credible Defense: The Court noted that the accused had failed to offer any credible defense or explanation for the death of the deceased. The Court observed that the appellants’ version of events was not supported by any material evidence.
- Medical Evidence: The Court relied on the medical expert’s testimony, which stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to compression of the neck, and that the injuries were homicidal in nature. This evidence supported the prosecution’s case that the deceased was strangled to death by the accused.
- Witness Testimonies: The Court found the testimonies of the witnesses to be credible and consistent. The testimonies of the deceased’s sister and friends established a motive for the crime and contradicted the appellants’ claim that they did not know the deceased.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Chain of Events | 30% |
| Special Knowledge (Section 106) | 25% |
| Lack of Credible Defense | 20% |
| Medical Evidence | 15% |
| Witness Testimonies | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles. The factual aspects of the case, such as the presence of the accused at the scene, the motive, and the nature of the injuries, played a significant role in the Court’s decision. The legal considerations, such as the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the burden of proof, were also crucial in the Court’s analysis.
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Whether the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof and established the chain of events to attract Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Prosecution’s Evidence: Established the presence of the accused at the scene, motive, and nature of the injuries.
Court’s Finding: Prosecution successfully established a chain of events pointing to the guilt of the accused.
Application of Section 106: Burden shifted to the accused to explain the circumstances of death due to their special knowledge.
Accused’s Failure: Accused failed to provide a credible explanation for the death.
Conclusion: Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding the accused guilty.
Final Order
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment of the High Court. The High Court had modified the conviction of the appellants from Section 302 to Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision, concluding that the prosecution had successfully established its case and the appellants had failed to provide a credible defense.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Sabitri Samantaray vs. State of Odisha* reinforces the principle that while the prosecution bears the initial burden of proof, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be invoked when the facts are within the special knowledge of the accused. In cases where the prosecution establishes a chain of events pointing to the guilt of the accused, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a credible explanation. This case serves as a significant precedent for cases involving homicidal deaths within private residences, clarifying the application of evidentiary principles and the burden of proof in such circumstances. The judgment highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence and the need for the accused to provide a reasonable explanation when they are the only ones with knowledge of the facts.