Can Section 106 of the Evidence Act be invoked where the accused's occupation of the premises is not proved?

No. Section 106 was pressed on the footing that there was no proper explanation for the dead body's presence in the apartment occupied by the accused on lease. But no document was produced to prove the owner's title, there was no lease deed, no register of visitors was produced, and nothing was produced to prove that the witness who spoke of handing over the keys was in fact the watchman of the complex. The absence of proof of ownership and of that employment debunks the theory of lease and, with it, the reliance placed on Section 106 — and casts a long shadow of doubt over the last seen theory as well.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.106 — s.65B — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen together — Test Identification Parade — Electronic evidence — Acquittal — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.106 — Occupation of the premises unproved — Section 106 cannot be invoked — Held: Where the ownership of the flat from which the corpus delicti was recovered is not proved and the witness’s employment as watchman is not established, the theory of lease is debunked and reliance on Section 106 falls with it. (¶11) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.65B — CCTV footage and call records — Certificate absent — Held further: CCTV footage produced without the certificate required under Section 65B, and call records not proved through the Nodal Officer of the service provider, cannot be looked into; the analysis built on those records falls flat. (¶6, 12) Evidence — Confessions — Discovery at the instance of an acquitted co-accused — Held further: Confessions cannot be relied on to inculpate any of the accused, and the statement of a co-accused who has been acquitted, leading to the discovery, cannot incriminate another, no independent witness having been examined. (¶4, 13) Circumstantial evidence — No substantive evidence connecting the accused — Conviction set aside — On facts, held: But for the post-mortem finding and the recovery of the body, there is no scrap of evidence worthy of reliance to connect the accused to the murder or even the flat. Conviction set aside; appeal allowed. (¶15, 16)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of KONDAPAKA SRIDHAR @SHEKAR v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India