Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 2006
In a specific instance in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v.
State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681) this Court held
that when the wife is injured in the dwelling home where the
husband ordinarily resides, and the husband offers no
explanation for the injuries to his wife, then the
circumstances would indicate that the husband is responsible
for the injuries. It was said: (SCC p. 694, para 22)
"22 Where an accused is alleged to have
committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution
succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly
before the commission of crime they were seen together
or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where
the husband also normally resided, it has been
consistently held that if the accused does not offer any
explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an
explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong
circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for
commission of the crime."
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors on 29 August, 2000
22. The law, therefore, is quite well settled that the burden
of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but
there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be
known only to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the
prosecution to prove. These facts need to be explained by
the accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong
circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts."
13 If the principles laid down in the above case are applied in the
present case, it emerges as follows:
Ganeshlal vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 April, 1992
18. Reliance was placed by this Court on Ganeshlal v.
State of Maharashtra {(1992) 3 SCC 106)} in which case the
appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife inside his
house. Since the death had occurred in his custody, it was
held that the appellant was under an obligation to give an
explanation for the cause of death in his statement under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A denial of
the prosecution case coupled with absence of any
explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of
the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the
appellant was a prime accused in the commission of murder
of his wife.
State Of Punjab vs Karnail Singh on 14 August, 2003
" 14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house
and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the
opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in
circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for
the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as
noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does
not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no
innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a
guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See
Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1944 AC 315) -
quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J in State of Punjab v.
Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not enjoin a
duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character
whichis almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely
difficult to be held. The duty on the prosecution is to lead
such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary
to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says
that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any
person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on
the content and scope of this provision and it reads:
Tukaram Dnyaneshwar Patil vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 13 March, 2015
19. Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra
{(2007) 10 SCC 445} this Court observed that since the
deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home and the
appellant had not set up a case that the offence was
committed by somebody else or that there was a possibility
of an outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband
to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.