THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS BALVEER SINGH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1669 OF 2012:

DATE: 24/02/2025

BENCH: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

FACTS:

The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 29.06.2010, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, which acquitted the respondent accused of charges under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case pertains to the alleged murder of the accused's wife on the night of 15.07.2003. The complainant, Bhoora Singh alias Yashpal, along with his father, heard the victim's cries coming from the accused’s house, which soon ceased. The following morning, they learned that the deceased had died and was cremated during the night. A complaint was lodged under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C., and an investigation was initiated.

During the inquiry, it was alleged that the respondent accused had killed his wife by throwing her from the first-floor porch and subsequently choking her with his leg. With the help of his sister, Jatan Bai, the accused allegedly cremated the body in an attempt to destroy evidence. Based on the investigation, an FIR was registered on 20.07.2003, and the accused was arrested on 22.07.2003. The police recovered burnt bangles, bones, and a plastic diesel can from the cremation site. Following the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed for trial. However, the High Court, in the impugned order, allowed the appeal, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

ISSUES:

The case raises critical legal questions regarding the reliability of child witness testimony and the test for parsing tutored statements. It also involves the principles governing the appreciation of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places a duty on the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge. Additionally, the case examines what constitutes a prima facie case or foundational facts under Section 106, determining when the burden shifts to the accused in the absence of direct evidence.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal and restored the conviction passed by the Trial Court, directing the accused to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence.

The Court found that the High Court erred in rejecting the testimony of PW6, a child witness, despite her credibility being established through extensive cross-examination. Courts have consistently held that child witnesses can be reliable if they understand the importance of truthfulness, and in this case, no contradictions or signs of tutoring were found. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence played a crucial role, as the accused was the last person with the deceased, engaged in suspicious behaviour by secretly cremating her body without informing her family, and had a history of cruelty toward her. The High Court failed to consider these significant factors, leading to a flawed acquittal.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on the accused to explain facts exclusively within their knowledge. While the prosecution must establish a prima facie case, once foundational facts point toward the accused’s involvement, the burden shifts to them to provide a reasonable explanation. The accused’s failure to do so, coupled with procedural loopholes that could allow criminals to evade justice, required a firm judicial response. Given the clear and compelling circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction to ensure accountability and reinforce legal principles in crimes committed in secrecy, particularly against women.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of a holistic evaluation of evidence, particularly in cases reliant on child witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that child witnesses, if found competent and credible, can provide reliable testimony forming the sole basis of conviction. By rejecting the High Court’s skepticism toward PW6’s statement, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s assessment, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies should not automatically discredit a witness. Furthermore, the Court reinforced the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence, particularly in cases where direct evidence is unavailable. The accused’s suspicious conduct, including his failure to explain the victim’s sudden death and his secretive cremation of her body, were considered significant incriminating factors that the High Court had erroneously overlooked.

The judgment also provides clarity on the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, reiterating that while the prosecution bears the primary burden of proof, an accused must explain facts within their exclusive knowledge once foundational facts indicate their involvement. The Court emphasized that Section 106 cannot be used to compensate for a weak prosecution case but serves as a crucial tool in cases involving crimes committed in secrecy, such as domestic violence and marital murders. By restoring the conviction, the Supreme Court sent a strong message regarding the duty of courts to adopt a realistic approach to evidence appreciation, especially in cases concerning crimes against women, ensuring that procedural loopholes do not allow perpetrators to evade justice.