(SHORT NOTE)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan
and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda-Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1983
Decided on 19.7.1984

IMPORTANT POINT
(i) As a general proposition, it cannot be laid for all purposes that for instance where a death takes place within a short time of marriage and the distance of time is not spread over three or four months, the statement would be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. This is always not so and cannot be so.
(ii) Suspicion, however great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. A moral conviction however strong or genuine cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law.
(iii) It must be recalled that the well established rule of criminal justice is that 'fouler the crime higher the proof.'
(iv) Normally, this Court (S.C.) does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below, in the absence of very special circumstances or gross errors of law committed by the High Court. But where the High Court ignores or overlooks the 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 duubt to the accused despite facts apparent on the face of the record or on its own findings or tries to gloss over them without giving any reasonable explanation or commits error of law apparent on the face of the record which results in serious and substantial miscarriage of justice to the accused, it is the duty of this court to step in and correct the legally erroneous decision of the High Court.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Death sentence-Confirmation by High Court-Appeal by special leave-Deceased (Manju) wife of the appellant-Cause of death 'potassium cynide' –Possibility of the deceased having committed suicide by consuming poison no excluded-Some of 17 circumstances not point out appellant's guilt-No acceptable evidence: either appellant or his parents ill-treated the deceased or intimacy between appellant and ujuvala girl-friend-Five witnesses, evidence untrustworthy-Case is one not of prolonged poisoning-Oral evidence and deceased's letters in admissible under Section 32(1) of Evidence Act-Doctor's conduct highly condemnable-Absence of control over the evidence by trial Judge-Case of circumstantial evidence-No direct evidence of administering poisoning, or either deceased or appellant possessed poison-Deceased extremely depressed and clear tendency from her psychotic nature to commit suicide-Two possibilities clear: case of suicide or case of murder-Both equally probable-That is, two views possible: one pointing out appellant's guilt and the other his innocence-Appellant entitled to benefit of one which is favourable to him-Appellant's guilt not proved beyond all reasonable doubt-Result –Appeal allowed, death sentence' set aside and appellant set at liberty forthwith.