Section 106 Evidence Act Inapplicable When Prosecution Relies On Eyewitnesses: Chhattisgarh HC

Where the prosecution premises its murder case on direct eyewitness testimony, invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to shift the burden of proof onto the accused is unsustainable in law. Reversing a trial court's conviction, the High Court held that the prosecution cannot invoke the burden of proof under Section 106 when it has affirmatively set up a case driven by eye-witnesses who subsequently turn hostile.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on a man accused of murdering his father, granting him the benefit of doubt after key prosecution witnesses failed to support the charge.

Evaluating the applicability of statutory presumptions, the High Court emphasized that the trial court committed a fundamental legal error by resorting to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...since the case of the prosecution is totally based on the basis of testimony of eye-witnesses, specially, Smt. Amrit Mahant (PW-01), the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in relying upon Section 106 of the IE Act to hold the appellant guilt for the offence in question and same is liable to be and is hereby set aside."

Referring to established precedents, the Court noted that in Murlidhar and others v. State of Rajasthan ( "AIR 2005 SC 2345": 2005 CaseBase(SC) 1084), the Supreme Court held that where the prosecution proceeds on the footing that there were eyewitnesses to the fact of murder, the principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has no application. This principle was further reinforced in Badshah and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(2008) 3 SCC 681": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 1328), reiterating that Section 106 cannot cover cases where the prosecution voluntarily undertakes the burden of proving the crime through alleged eyewitnesses.

The Court has following directions:

"Accordingly, we hereby set aside the conviction so recorded and the sentence so awarded by the trial Court to the appellant vide the impugned judgment dated 05.04.2019. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, he need not to surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in force for a further period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC."

Background

The dispute arose from an incident on January 31, 2018, where the accused was alleged to have assaulted his father with hand and fists, resulting in his death due to throttling and fractured ribs. Police registered an FIR under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code following a report by the deceased's wife. Summons were issued under Section 175 of the Cr.P.C. and an inquest was conducted.

During trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. However, the deceased's wife (PW-1) completely turned hostile, testifying that her husband died from a fall on a stone mill. The deceased's son (PW-2) also stated he arrived after the incident. Despite the primary witnesses turning hostile, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, relying on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

On appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., the High Court found that while the death was homicidal, the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2019
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:35164-DB
Case Title: Pitambar Mahant @ Pintu Mahant v. State of Chhattisgarh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 9016