SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Fazal Ali, Varadarajan and S. Mukbarji, JJ.
Sharad Birdhicband Sarda-Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra-Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1983
Decided on 19-7-1984

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence only if the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn stand fully established and they are consistent only with the guilt of the accused. If any circumstance consistent with innocence of the accused is proved conviction cannot be ordered.
(2) Four important circumstances which must be proved in a case of murder by poisoning in order to justify a conviction are-(i) A clear motive of the accused to administer poison (ii) Deceased died of poison (iii) Accused had poison in his possession (iv) Accused had opportunity to administer it.
(3) Merely because the appellant had the opportunity to administer poison and the same was found in the body of the deceased it cannot be presumed that the accused had the poison in his possession.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 302 -Appellant convicted for murdering his wife under Section 302, Indian Penal Code by concurrent findings of fact of the Sessions Judge and High Court-Circumstances which justify interference of the Supreme Court.

       Held where the High Court ignores or overlooks crying circumstances and proved facts, violates and misapplies the well established principles of criminal jurisprudence or decisions rendered by this court on appreciation of circumstantial evidence and refuses to give benefit of doubt to the accused despite facts apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court has to step in and correct the legally erroneous decision of the High Court. (Para 138)

       (ii) Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 32(1)-Test of Proximity-Wife of the appellant died 4 months after marriage Letters written by her to relatives and friends before her marriage and oral statements made to her relatives.

       Question

       Whether the letters of the deceased and her oral statements are admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act?

       Held Per Fazal Ali, J.

       Distance of time would depend or vary with the 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 female of the story, the statement regarding each step directly connected with the end of the drama would be admissible. (Para 18)

        Further held where the main evidence consists of statements and letters written by the deceased which are directly connected with or relaled to her death would clearly fall within the four corners of Section 32 and therefore admissible. (Para 18)

       Varadarajan, J. (dissenting)

       The circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence and general expressions indicating fear or suspicion of not directly connected with the occasion of death will not be admissible.

       Therefore held as the oral evidence of the witnesses and the letters of the deceased do not reveal the cause of Manju's death or of the circumstances which resulted in her death during that night it is not admissible as evidence under Section 32(1), Evidence Act. (Para 161)

       Per Mukharji, J.-(concurring with Fazal Ali, J.)

       I respectfully agree with Fazal Ali, J. that the test of proximity cannot and should not be too literally construed but it must be emphasised that whenever it is extended beyond the immediate, it should be the exception and must be done with great caution and care. (Para 168)

       Therefore held in exceptional circumstances like the present case such statements may be admissible. (Para 168)

       (iii) Indian Penal Code 1800, Section 302-Conviction based on circumstantial evidence-Standard of proof required.

       Held the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence should not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 122)

       (iv) Conviction based on circumstantial evidence-False defence taken by accused importance of in establishing his guilt.

       Held where the various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into did only to lend assurance to the court. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by the court. (Para 121)

       (v) Marder by poisoning-4 important circumstances need. to be proved one that the deceased died of poisoning-Two the accused had the motive to poison-Three that the accused possessed the poison–Four accused had opportunity to administer it.

       Question

       Whether all these four ingredients stand proved in the instant case? (No)

       Held it has not been proved by any evidence that the appellant had the poison in his possession or that he had the motive to poison his wife. It cannot be presumed that because the appellant had the opportunity to administer poison and the same was found in the body of the deceased that the accused was in possession of poison. (Para 130)

       (v) Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 302 -Appellant's wife was found dead in her room four months after her marriage Appellant was present with her at time of death- Post-mortem report attributed death to poisoning-Relations between husband and wife strained at time of death – Circumstantial evidence conducive to hypothens of both murder and suicide.

       Question

       Whether the accused can be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence? (No)

       (Para 130)

        (For detailed examination of circumstances relied upon by High Court see paras 107-118)

       (vi) Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 302-Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section 313-Circumstantial evidence relied Upon by the High Court-Accused not cross-examined on the same date in his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code.

       Question

       Whether the court can rely on circumstances appearing against the accused without giving him an opportunity to explain? (No) (Para 114)

       Result

       The order of conviction is quashed and the appeal is allowed. (Paras 147, 170, 175)