Recently, while dismissing appeals filed by a man and his mother against their conviction for cruelly treating his wife, who died due to poisoning, the Supreme Courts of India has held that the Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women,
The top court said it is expected that courts would not allow criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities, perfunctory investigation or insignificant lacunas in the evidence, otherwise the victims would be totally discouraged by the crime going unpunished.
"The courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women," a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra said in its verdict delivered on Friday.
The judgment was rendered in response to the appeals filed by the two convicted individuals contesting a March 2014 ruling by the Uttarakhand High Court.
The High Court had affirmed the decision of a trial court that had found the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased guilty in a case dating back to 2007.
While the husband, Balvir Singh, was convicted for offences under sections 302 (murder) and 498-A (subjecting a married woman to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, the mother-in-law of the deceased was held guilty of the offence under Section 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the IPC.
The top court observed that the victim had married Singh in December 1997. Subsequently, in June 2007, her father had filed an application in a magisterial court, requesting the police to initiate an FIR (First Information Report) regarding the suspicious circumstances surrounding his daughter's death in May 2007.
Later, an FIR was registered in the matter and the woman's husband and mother-in-law were arrested.
During the trial, both of them claimed innocence and said they were implicated in a false case.
During the trial, both of them claimed innocence and said they were implicated in a false case.
Following their conviction by the trial court, both individuals had appealed to the high court, where their convictions were upheld.
"We completely rule out the theory of suicide as sought to be put forward on behalf of the appellants," the bench said.
Referring to some previous judgements of the Supreme Court, the bench said it is evident that the court should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution.
"It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases. The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials in this country that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act," it said.
The top court clarified that invoking Section 106 of the Act should not be used as a means to compensate for the prosecution's failure to present evidence indicating the guilt of the accused.
"This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence," it said.
The bench noted, "When facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether the proposition is an affirmative or a negative one".
"We take notice of the fact that the appellant-convict (husband) has not explained in any manner as to what had actually happened to his wife more particularly when it is not in dispute that the appellant-convict was in the company of his wife, that is, deceased," it said.
The bench, however, reduced the sentence of the mother-in-law of the victim to the period already undergone.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy