PROSECUTOR HOW TO CONTRADICT PROSECUTION WITNESS
14. In this case, P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 not supported the case of prosecution. While that being so, their statements and contradictions ought to have been put to the Investigating Officers/P.W. 15 & P.W. 16 by the prosecution to discredit those witnesses and to rely upon the other circumstances. In this case, it has not been done and nothing elicited during trial. The Trial Court finding that it is for the accused to discharge the burden cast upon them by Section 106 of the Evidence Act, is not proper. The case projected by the prosecution is based on eye witnesses and not by circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court will not apply on the evidence and facts of this case. In a case of circumstantial evidence, ‘motive’ plays an important role. If the motive, which is considered to be the starting point of the offence, is not established, then the conviction, based on the theory of last seen together only, cannot be sustained. In this case, as stated by the Trial Court, the appellant/A1 had no motive on the deceased and no premeditation in murdering the deceased. Added to it, there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution that the appellant/A1 was with the deceased at the time of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of events, which was the basic requirement in cases of circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant/A1 with the commission of offence. The hypothesis derived from the facts to show unerringly that the accused alone is the reason and cause for the death. In this case, no such chain of events and facts available. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant/A1 is legally unsustainable.
APPRECIATION OF SECTION 106 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
15. As could be seen from the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused on the strength of the foundation of the facts. If the prosecution successfully proves the case against the accused, then only, burden would shift on the accused as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove his innocence. Here, in this case, the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 turned hostile and there is no material or evidence to prove the appellant/A1 was with the deceased at the time of occurrence. Hence, the Trial Court shifting the burden upon the appellant/A1, is not proper.
PARTY: A.No.655 of 2018 Thamaraikannan … Appellant -Vs State rep by Inspector of Police, Pallipalayam Police Station, Namakkal District. Crime No.903/2012. … RespondentCrl.A. No. 655 of 201 – 31.03.2023 – THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1031035
