UMA & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 2024 (SC) 843
Facts: In this case, a criminal appeal was filed by the appellants challenging the decision of the High Court, which overturned their acquittal in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the accused were present in the house when the deceased died. However, in their defense under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the accused claimed an alibi, stating that they had gone to a specific location to attend a function. The High Court overturned the acquittal after finding that the accused’s statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. lacked credibility, as they failed to substantiate their alibi for the time of the incident.
Issue:Whether the accused are required to offer explanations when the offence was committed in the privacy of their own house?
Observation: The Supreme Court, while affirming the High Court's decision, observed that where an offense occurs in the presence of the accused within the privacy of their house, their failure to
offer an explanation could be treated as an adverse circumstance against them, pursuant to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”). The JUDGMENT, authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, emphasized that in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the failure of the accused to justify their claim under Section 106 of the IEA—despite having special knowledge of the incident—would serve to strengthen the prosecution's case by creating an additional chain of events.
The Court held, “In terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the appellants have not discharged their burden of proving that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and were not inflicted by them.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned JUDGMENT was upheld.
