Key Points: - (!) Accused No.1 (husband) convicted under Section 302 IPC; death sentence confirmed as rarest of rare case. - (!) Post-mortem evidence cannot unerringly prove mechanical suffocation; reliance on such findings is unsafe. - (!) Death by poisoning established; accused present at the time; accused failed to impress alibi; circumstantial evidence used to convict. - (!) Accused Nos. 2 and 3's conviction under Section 201 IPC set aside; state’s appeal for enhancement rejected. - (!) Motive established through illicit liaison; corroborating factors include concealment of anklet, locked room not bolted from inside, and foreign/uncommon poison. - (!) Burden of proving alibi lies on the accused; watchman testimony supports presence at home between 11:15 p.m. and 12:00–1:00 a.m. - (!) Also cited Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab to apply death sentence in rarest of rare cases.

What is the standard for confirming a death sentence in a rarest of rare case involving murder by a husband to further a love affair?

What is the court's finding regarding whether death was due to poisoning and whether mechanical suffocation evidence is reliable?

What are the conclusions regarding the alibi burden and whether circumstantial evidence suffices to prove poisoning and murder?

State of Maharashtra VS Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda