Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Balveer Singh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2012
Date: 24 February, 2025
Quorum: Justice J.B. Pardhiwala
Facts
On the night of 15 July 2003, cries and screams were heard from the home of the accused, and by morning it was discovered that his wife, Birendra Kumari, had died. Evidence gathered later revealed that her body was clandestinely cremated in a field owned by the accused. Among the evidence was the testimony of Rani, a child witness aged about 7–8 years, who recounted that she was sleeping with her mother when the accused attacked her, ultimately causing her death.Significantly, the statement of Rani was recorded 18 days after the occurrence. Furthermore, several witnesses deposed on the accused’s inability to clarify his actions and his strange conduct during the evening of the occurrence, such as fleeing the spot following the cremation.
Issues
- Does the 18-day delay in recording Rani’s statement imply that her testimony was influenced or “tutored,” thus undermining its credibility?
- Can the complete chain of circumstantial evidence—despite minor variations in witness accounts—irrefutably establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- How should the court interpret the burden placed on the accused to explain facts that are especially within his knowledge, without diminishing the prosecution’s duty to prove guilt?
Legal Provisions
- Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Requires that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of the accused, the burden of proving that fact lies on him. However, this provision does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Section 118 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Establishes that every person, regardless of age, is competent to testify provided they understand the questions asked and can provide rational answers.
Arguments by the Appellants
The defense argued that the 18-day delay in recording Rani’s testimony casts doubt on its reliability. They argued that the delay gives rise to a possibility of tutoring, particularly as Rani was staying with her relatives who are known to have been unfriendly to the accused. The defence argued that such evidence under those circumstances had to be treated with utmost suspicion and that, short of proper corroboration, her evidence was not to serve as the only basis for conviction.
Arguments by the Respondents
The prosecution rejected that the delay in recording the child’s statement was not typical and could not necessarily mean manipulation. They contended that the testimony of Rani, though delayed recording, was congruent with other evidence such as statements from adult witnesses and physical evidence that all together presented a complete picture of the crime. They pointed out that minor discrepancies and the natural propensity of a child’s memory to err do not take away from the overall reliability of her evidence, especially when circumstantial evidence points unmistakably and unequivocally to the guilt of the accused.
Analysis
The Court accorded sincere consideration to the inherent challenges in evaluating child evidence. Having in mind that children are more susceptible to external influence, the Court noted that legal principle requires that such evidence be scrutinized but not necessarily rejected. The 18-day delay, while problematic, was not found to be the product of any concerted effort to rehearse Rani. Neither was the questioning officer asked about the delay, possibly a standard procedural issue.
In addition, the Court expounded that circumstantial evidence is based on making logical inferences from the chain of proven facts. Rani’s testimony was not even the only evidence the prosecution required for their case in fact it was corroborated by numerous witnesses and the not lying evidence and no crime explanation by the perpetrator by the way. The accused’s silence and evasive behavior coupled with his vanishing from the scene added weight to the inference that he was guilty of the murder.
The Court further elucidated that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not reverse the general burden on the prosecution. It merely empowers the court to put the accused on the burden of explaining facts which are particularly within his knowledge. In this case, the accused was not able to present any plausible explanation of his presence on the night of the incident. Lack of his denial of the inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence, therefore, also made the case of the prosecution more stronger.
Judgment
The delay in recording Rani’s testimony, though noted, did not conclusively prove that her evidence was tainted by tutoring. Rani’s testimony, when evaluated alongside corroborative evidence from other witnesses, remained credible and consistent. The chain of circumstantial evidence highlighting the accused’s unexplained conduct, his failure to account for his wife’s death, and his subsequent disappearance was complete and pointed irresistibly to his guilt. The principles encapsulated in Section 106 of the Evidence Act were properly applied to infer that the accused’s silence on critical issues further supported the prosecution’s case.
Accordingly, the Court restored the conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, reversing the earlier acquittal by the High Court.
Conclusion
Ahead of this, the Court made it clear that the witnessing of a child requires a thorough check and that it should be pictured in its wider frame of all possibilities to handle the situation. The 18-day space found in the case of the recording of Rani’s statement did not present valid reasons for her account to be disregarded, especially, taking into account the witness of multiple corroborating sources. The overall chain of circumstantial evidence left no reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s guilt. The Court’s decision to restore the conviction and sentence the accused to life imprisonment reflects a balanced approach that recognizes both the limitations of human memory and the necessity of holding a guilty party accountable, even when evidence is largely inferential.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by OUM NARANG
