Section 106 Evidence Act Is Not Intended To Relieve Prosecution From Discharging Its Duty To Prove The Guilt Of The Accused
Case: Satye Singh vs State of Uttarakhand
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi
Case No.: CrA 2374 of 2014
Court Observation: “Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused……In the case on hand, the prosecution having failed to prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused, the burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in section 106 of the Evidence Act. There being no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the entire chain of circumstances which may compel the court to arrive at the conclusion that the accused only had committed the alleged crime, the court has no hesitation in holding that the Trial Court and the High Court had committed gross error of law in convicting the accused for the alleged crime, merely on the basis of the suspicion, conjectures and surmises”
Previous Posts
Post Office/Bank Can Be Held Liable For Frauds Or Wrongs Committed by its Employees: Supreme Court
Dismissal Of An Earlier Section 482 CrPC Petition Does Not Bar Filing Of Subsequent Petition If Facts So Justify: Supreme Court Download Judgement
