Section 106 Burden Discharged, Vague Extrajudicial Confession Unsafe: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Wife's Life Sentence

The appellant and her husband worked at a school and lived with their children, P.Ws. 1 to 3, on the premises, where he was killed on 20 May 2002 between 10:15 PM and 11:30 PM (para 2). Her oral FIR (Exhibit P-20) said she left him at 10:15 PM, watched television with the children in another room and found him dead at 11:30 PM (para 2). The police alleged she killed him in conspiracy with a co-accused said to be in an illicit relationship with her (para 2). On 29 May 2003 the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Banswara sentenced both to life imprisonment (paras 1, 3). The co-accused's appeal abated on his death (para 4).

The Court examined three circumstances: last seen together, motive and an extrajudicial confession (para 5). Her FIR placed her with the children in a separate room from 10:15 PM to 11:30 PM, and the children supported her (para 6). The post-mortem placed death 6 to 24 hours before the examination at 1 PM on 21 May 2002, so it could have occurred even before 10:15 PM (para 6). The FIR lacked self-incriminating material and was not a confession; its contents were admissible as admissions under Sections 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act (para 6). Proved not to be with him during the period the prosecution itself alleged, she had discharged her Section 106 obligation to explain the death (para 6). Two school employees said only that the co-accused phoned and she took his calls; as their mothers were sisters, the calls did not show an illicit relationship (para 7). The deceased's brothers, P.Ws. 7 and 8, gave no date, place, circumstances or exact words of the alleged confession. They failed the test of credibility, nothing corroborated them, and the trial court erred in resting the conviction on that sole circumstance (para 8).