http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 77

PETITIONER:

SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/07/1984

BENCH:

FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

BENCH:

FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:

1984 AIR 1622 1985 SCR (1) 88

1984 SCC (4) 116 1984 SCALE (2)445

CITATOR INFO :

D 1988 SC1101 (22)

F 1990 SC 79 (21)

R 1991 SC 917 (37,42,50)

R 1991 SC1842 (6)

ACT:

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136-Interference

by the Supreme Court with the concurrent findings of fact of

the courts below, normally not permissible-Special

circumstance like errors of law, violation of well

established principles of criminal jurisprudence etc. would

be necessary for interference.

Evidence-Circumstantial evidence, nature and proof of-

Conditions precedent for conviction-Evidence Act Section 3

(Act 1 of 1972).

Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-Onus of proof-

Prosecution must prove every link of the chain and complete

chain-Infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured

by false defence or plea-A person cannot be convicted on

pure moral conviction-False explanation can be used as

additional link to fortify the prosecution case, subject to

satisfaction of certain conditions.

Doctrine of Proximity, concept of, nature and limits

explained-Admissibility of statements and dying declarations

under sections 8, 32 of the Evidence Act.

Murder by administration of poison-Circumstances that

should be looked into before a conviction-Penal Code (Act

XLV of 1860) Section 300.

Evidence, appreciation of-Evidence of interested

witnesses, especially that of close relatives of the

deceased-Duty of the Court-Evidence Act (Act I of 1872)

Section 3.

Benefit of doubt-When two views are possible, one

leading to the guilt of the accused and the other leading to

his innocence, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused

entitling his acquittal-Evidence Act (Act I of 1872)

Sections 101-104.

Examination of the accused under Section 313 of Crl.

P.C.-Circumstances not put to the accused to explain, cannot

be considered for conviction-Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (Act II of 1974) Section 313.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 77

HEADNOTE:

The appellant, Rameshwar, Birdhichand Sarda, Ramvilas

Rambagas Sarda, were accused 1, 2 and 3 respectively in

Sessions Case No. 203 of 1982 on the file of the Additional

Sessions Judge, Pune. The appellant and the second accused

are the sons of one Birdhichand of Pune whose family has a

cloth business. In addition, the appellant, a graduate in

Chemical Engineering had

89

started a chemical factory at Bhosari, a suburb of Pune. The

third accused is uncle of the appellant and the second

accused. The appellant is the husband of Manjushree alias

Manju while the second accused is the husband of Anuradha

(P.W. 35). Birdhichand’s family has its residential house at

Ravivar Peth in Pune and owns a flat in a building known as

Takshasheela Apartments in Mukund Nagar area of Pune. All

the three accused were charged for the alleged offence of

murder by poisoning on the night of 11/12.6.1982 of Manju

the newly married wife of the first accused and the

appellant herein under section 302 I.P.C. read with section

120B. Accused No, 3 was also charged under section 201 read

with Section 120B I.P.C. The whole case vested on the

circumstantial evidence based on certain letters alleged to

have been written by the deceased to some of the witnesses

and other statements of the deceased to them and the medical

report. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court

found all the three accused guilty as charged, convicted

them accordingly and sentenced the appellant to death u