Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
Sharad Biridhichand Sarda, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal appeal No. 745 of 1983
Decided on 19-7-1984.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate, M/s. M. S. Ganesh, F. N. Ranka, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. K. G. Bhagat, A. S. G., M/s. M. N. Shroff, U. A. Jadhavrao, Advocates with him, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code ,1860 - Section 302, 120-B and 109 read with 201 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 313 - Evidence Act - Section 8 and 32 - Offence of Murder - Criminal Conspiracy - Charged - Appellant was not at all interested in her and had illicit intimacy with another girl, he practically discarded his wife and when he found things to be unbearable he murdered her between night and made a futile attempt to cremate dead body - Ultimately, matter was reported to police - On other hand, plea of defence was that while there was a strong possibility having been ill-treated and uncared for by her husband or her in-laws, being a highly sensitive and impressionate woman she committed suicide out of sheer depression and frustration arising from an emotional upsurge - This is the dominant issue which falls for decision by this Court - Court rejected theory of suicide and found that was murdered by her husband by administering her a strong dose of potassium cyanide and relied on medical evidence as also that of Chemical Examiner to show that it was a case of pure and simple homicide rather than that of suicide as alleged by defence - High Court while confirming judgment of trial Court affirmed death sentence and hence this appeal by special leave - Held, Distance of time would depend or vary with circumstances of each case - For instance, where death is a logical culmination of a continuous drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of story, statement regarding each step directly connected with end of drama would be admissible because entire statement would have to be read as an organic whole and not torn from context - Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of transaction of death - It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after death of deceased who speaks from death - As a general proposition, it cannot be laid down for all purposes that for instance where a death takes place within a short time of marriage and distance of time is not spread over three or four months, statement would be admissible under Section 32 of Evidence Act - This is always not so and cannot be so - In very exceptional circumstances like circumstances in present case such statements may be admissible and that too not foil proving positive fact but as an indication of a negative fact, namely raising some doubt about the guilt of accused as in this case - Appeal allowed.
The decision in this case primarily hinges on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the admissibility and probative value of the statements made by the deceased, Manju, prior to her death. The Court carefully examined the evidence, including her letters and oral statements, and analyzed whether these could conclusively establish that the appellant murdered her or whether there was a reasonable possibility that she committed suicide.
The Court found that the evidence did not conclusively prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted that the circumstances presented, including the last seen evidence, medical findings, and the alleged statements of Manju, did not establish a direct link to the act of murder. Significant doubts were raised regarding the credibility and admissibility of certain statements, especially those under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, which relate to statements made by a person who is dead. The Court emphasized that such statements must have a proximate relation to the actual transaction resulting in death and that their admissibility is limited to circumstances closely connected to the event.
Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report and the expert opinions, and identified inconsistencies and irregularities in the handling and interpretation of evidence, including interpolations and alterations in official records. These discrepancies undermined the prosecution’s case that the death was caused by homicidal poisoning.
The Court also considered the possibility of suicide, supported by the detailed and emotionally charged letters of Manju, which indicated her mental state, feelings of despair, and a propensity for self-harm due to her distressing circumstances. The evidence suggested that her mental condition, characterized by depression and emotional turmoil, could have led her to take her own life, and this possibility could not be safely excluded.
In conclusion, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was insufficient to exclude the hypothesis of suicide, and the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete and conclusive chain of proof. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, and his conviction was set aside, leading to his acquittal and immediate release.
JUDGMENT
FAZAL ALI, J.—This is rather an unfortunate case where a marriage arranged and brought about through the intervention of common friends of the families of the bride and bridegroom though made a good start but ran into rough weather soon thereafter. The bride, Manju, entertained high hopes and aspirations and was not only hoping but was anxiously looking forward to a life full of mirth and merriment, mutual love and devotion between the two spouses. She appears to be an extremely emotional and sensitive girl and at the very behest cherished ideal dreams to be achieved after her marriage, which was solemnised, on Feb. 11, 1982 between her and the appellant, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. Soon after the marriage, Manju left for her new marital home and started residing with the appellant in Takshila Apartments at Pune. Unfortunately, however, to her utter dismay and disappointment she found that the treatment of her husband and his parents towards her was cruel and harsh and her cherished dreams seem to have been shattered to pieces. Despite this shocking state of affairs she did not give in and kept hoping against hope and being of a very noble and magnanimous nature she was always willing to forgive and forget. As days passed by, despite. her most laudable attitude she found that "things were not what they seem" and to quote her own words "she was treated in her husbands house as a labourer or as an unpaid maid-servant" She was made to do all sorts of odd jobs and despite her protests to her husband nothing seems to have happened. Even so, Manju had such a soft and gentle frame of mind as never to complain to her parents in-law, not even to hex husband except sometimes. On finding things unbearable, she did protest, and expressed her feelings in clearest possible terms, in a fit of utter desperation and frustration, that he hated her. Not only this, when she narrated her woeful tale to her sister Anju in the letters written to her (which would be dealt with in a later part of the judgment), she took the abundant care and caution of requesting Anju not to reveal her sad plight to her parents lest they may get extremely upset, worried and distressed.
2. Ultimately, things came to such a pass that Manju was utterly disgusted and disheartened and she thought that a point of no-return had reached. At last, on the fateful morning of June 12, 1982, i.e., nearly four months after her marriage, she was found dead in her bed.
3. As to the cause of death, there appears to be a very serious divergence between the prosecution version and the defence case. The positive case of the prosecution was that as the appellant was not at all interested in her and had illicit intimacy with another girl, Ujvala, he practically discarded his wife and when he found things to be unbearable he murdered her between the night of June 11 and 12, 1982, and made a futile attempt to cremate the dead body. Ultimately, the matter was reported to the police. On the other hand, the plea of the defence was that while there was a strong possibility of Manju having been ill-treated and uncared for by her husband or her in-laws, being a highly sensitive and impressionate woman she committed suicide out of sheer depression and frustration arising from an emotional upsurge. This is the dominant issue which falls for decision by this Court.
4. Both the High Court and the trial Court rejected the theory of suicide and found that Manju was murdered by her husband by administering her a strong dose of potassium cyanide and relied on the medical evidence as also that of the Chemical Examiner to show that it was a case of pure and simple homicide rather than that of suicide as alleged by the defence. The High Court while confirming the judgment of the trial Court affirmed the death sentence and hence this appeal by special leave.
5. Before discussing the facts of the case, it may be mentioned that although the High Court and the trial Court have gone into meticulous and minute
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
