Reaffirming the Prosecution’s Primary Burden Before Invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s Judgment in Ravi v. The State of Punjab (2025 INSC 170) addresses a criminal appeal arising from a conviction for murder. The case revolves around the death of the accused’s first wife under suspicious circumstances and examines the interplay between circumstantial evidence, the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the principles governing the burden of proof. The central question before the Court concerned whether the appellant-accused could be held guilty of murder solely based on circumstantial evidence when the prosecution’s key witnesses had turned hostile.

In its ruling, the Court places strong emphasis on the cardinal principles of circumstantial evidence. It particularly underscores that before Section 106 shifts the burden of explaining special facts to the accused, the prosecution must establish a prima facie case of guilt. This Judgment reaffirms that when the prosecution fails to conclusively prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the benefit must be extended to the accused.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant-accused, Ravi, was charged with killing his first wife, allegedly by strangulation, and convicted by both the trial court and the High Court. Three crucial witnesses—relatives of the deceased—turned hostile, forcing the prosecution to rely heavily on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court dissected this evidence, particularly the post-mortem report indicating the deceased’s death was caused by asphyxia, possibly due to hanging or strangulation, but also acknowledging that chronic tuberculosis could have caused similar symptoms. The rope supposedly used to commit the crime did not conclusively connect the appellant to the offense, as it was a commonly available type of rope.

The Supreme Court observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be applied unless the prosecution had discharged its initial or primary burden of proof. As the prosecution’s leap to implicate the accused was not supported by concrete evidence, and there were alternate explanations for the death (including the possibility of a natural death from chronic illness), the appellant was granted the benefit of doubt. The Court set aside the appellant’s conviction, ordering his immediate release based on the principle that suspicion alone cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
The Court referred to the “five golden principles” to be fulfilled in cases relying on circumstantial evidence:

• The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established.
• The facts established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt, excluding any other possibility.
• The circumstances must be of a conclusive nature.
• They must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
• There must be a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion of innocence.

The prosecution’s evidence fell short of satisfying these principles because it did not exclude the possibility of natural death.

2. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State Of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681
The State invoked this ruling to argue that Section 106 of the Evidence Act imposes a corresponding duty on an inmate (or occupant) of the scene of the crime to provide a cogent explanation. However, the Court clarified that this duty arises only after the prosecution has established a prima facie case pointing toward the accused’s guilt.

3. Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT (2024) SCC OnLine SC 757
Cited to emphasize that Section 106 of the Evidence Act must be applied cautiously. It does not absolve the prosecution of its fundamental responsibility to establish the essential facts that constitute the offense. Only when such a preliminary burden is satisfied can the burden shift to the accused.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and concluded it was not. As three witnesses (including the deceased’s brother and sister) categorically contradicted their original statements and were declared hostile, prosecution evidence was severely weakened.

While the cause of death was suggested to be asphyxia (from strangulation or hanging), the doctor who conducted the post-mortem admitted that chronic tuberculosis could also cause asphyxia, and that prolonged handling of the body during transport might explain possible marks on the deceased’s neck. Consequently, the medical evidence remained inconclusive.

Regarding the rope allegedly used to commit the murder, the investigating officer conceded it was a common rope readily available in the market, breaking any exclusive nexus with the accused. Hence, the Court concluded that the factual basis for proving murder was lacking.

The Judgment also points out that only once this threshold level of proof is crossed does Section 106 of the Evidence Act obligate the accused to explain circumstances within his special knowledge. Because the prosecution had not met that threshold, the law could not presume guilt solely from the appellant’s failure to clarify the situation inside his living quarters.

C. Impact

• Clarification on Section 106 of the Evidence Act: This Judgment fortifies the position that Section 106 applies only after the prosecution successfully establishes a prima facie case. It prevents misuse of the provision to remedy prosecutorial shortcomings.

• Guidance for Lower Courts: Trial and appellate courts are reminded that convictions must rest exclusively on evidence that conclusively rules out any other explanation. Merely weaving a chain of suspicious circumstances is insufficient.

• Reinforcement of the “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Standard: This decision further cements the burden on the State to establish guilt unequivocally, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused in criminal trials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Circumstantial Evidence: These are indirect proofs requiring the court to infer the accused's guilt from a chain of individual facts. Circumstantial evidence must be so cohesive and compelling that no other rational explanation exists except the accused’s guilt.

2. Section 106 of the Evidence Act: States that if any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden to prove that fact is upon him. In context, it suggests that if the accused was alone with the victim, the circumstance of the victim’s death might be “especially within” his knowledge. However, this shifts the burden of proof to the accused only if the prosecution first completes its task of establishing a consistent factual scenario pointing to the accused’s guilt.

3. Five Golden Principles (Sharad Sarda): These set a strict and structured method for courts to evaluate circumstantial evidence. All five requirements must be met for a conviction based on indirect evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ravi v. The State of Punjab underscores the fundamental rule that the burden of proving guilt remains squarely upon the prosecution. Even in cases where the facts seem suspicious or if the accused has not provided a full explanation, the onus does not automatically shift to the accused. If the prosecution’s case is deficient in conclusive evidence, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

By setting aside the conviction and directing Ravi’s immediate release, the Judgment firmly re-establishes that criminal convictions cannot be upheld on surmise or partial proof. Courts must ensure that each element of the alleged offense is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, this ruling serves as a reminder of the high standard of proof required to convict an accused, especially where a case rests on circumstantial evidence and where Section 106 of the Evidence Act is mistakenly invoked as a substitute for the prosecution’s own burden.

In all, the Judgment reaffirms a core judicial principle: the presumption of innocence is at the heart of criminal jurisprudence, and any disregard of the prosecution’s primary burden would undermine the very foundations of a fair trial.