Nusrat Parween vs State Of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 955 – S 106 Evidence Act – Murder Case

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 106 – In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation as required under Section 106 of the Evidence Act can serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – but only if the prosecution has already established other essential ingredients sufficient to shift the onus on to the accused. However, if the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstances in the first place, then the accused’s failure to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act becomes irrelevant. (Para 17)

Criminal Trial – Motive – Proof of motive is not sine qua non in a case of murder. However, in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, motive if properly established, assumes great significance and would definitely provide an important corroborative link in the chain of incriminating circumstances and strengthen the case of prosecution. (Para 9) – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably to the accused person’s guilt. The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. In other words, from the chain of incriminating circumstances, no reasonable doubt can be entertained about the accused person’s innocence, demonstrating that it was the accused and none other who committed the offence- Referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra. (Para 7)