The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a couple accused of murdering their niece and nephew, ruling that conviction cannot be based on mere suspicion and that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal overturned the conviction of Domendra Ojha and his wife, Malti Bai, who were sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly killing two children in 2015.
Background of the Case
The case involved the tragic deaths of six-year-old Bhuneshwari and three-year-old Mohan, the children of Ghanshyam Ojha. According to the prosecution, on May 11, 2015, the children were found burned inside their home in Ghughsidih village, Durg district. The FIR, lodged by their father, initially suspected Malti Bai of the crime, as she allegedly used to complain about the children and mistreat them.
The trial court convicted Domendra Ojha and Malti Bai under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on circumstantial evidence, primarily relying on the fact that they were present at home during the incident and failed to explain the children’s deaths. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs. 500 each by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg.
Legal Issues and High Court’s Observations
The key legal issue in the appeal was whether the prosecution successfully proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the trial court was correct in invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which shifts the burden of proof onto the accused in cases where a fact is especially within their knowledge.
Senior Advocate Smt. Fouzia Mirza, representing the appellants, argued that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence and lacked concrete proof. She pointed out inconsistencies in the recovery of alleged evidence, such as kerosene containers and matchsticks, which were claimed to be seized from the accused a day after they were initially found at the crime scene. She also highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive.
Deputy Advocate General Shri Sanjeev Pandey defended the trial court’s verdict, asserting that the accused were the last persons with the children and failed to provide a credible explanation for their deaths.
High Court’s Ruling
The High Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof. It ruled that:
The prosecution failed to establish that the accused were present at the scene when the crime occurred.
The evidence against them was circumstantial and did not form a complete chain linking them to the crime.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court erred in shifting the burden of proof entirely onto the accused.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Nagendra Sah vs. State of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC 725, the Bench reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and not the accused. It ruled that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, failure to explain does not amount to guilt unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case.
The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction, and ordered the immediate release of Domendra Ojha and Malti Bai. It directed the trial court to transmit the judgment to the jail authorities for necessary action.
