Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra

The landmark case, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra is a case of circumstantial evidence where Supreme Court referring  to the decision held in Hanumant vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, laid down five golden principle that constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. These conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established.

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

 ( 2 ) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

( 3 ) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

( 4 ) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

( 5 ) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

                            

 

CASE HISTORY

 

Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted the convict/appellant who was sentenced to death on the charges for  murder of his wife after 4 months of marriage.

 

CASE FACT

The wife of the appellant was found dead in the apartment of the appellant i.e matrimonial house of the deceased wife. In the post mortem report it was found that the wife died by high dose of potassium cyanide.

The High Court of Maharashtra and the Trial Court had convicted the appellant, but the higher appellate Court was unable to agree with the decision held by both the Courts. The Court had termed the witnesses as dependable so as to exclude the possibility of suicide and held that it was husband who murdered the deceased based on the irresistible inference drawn from the evidence.

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 Trial Court found all three accused guilty and convicted them and sentenced the appellant to death under Section 302 IPC and two years and fine under Section 120B IPC to two other accused alongwith the appellant.

          Upon appeal to the High Court, by the appellant, the Court reduced the sentence under Section 120B but confirmed the sentence to death but acquitted the other two accused.

Hence, appellant approached Supreme Court against conviction by High Court and Trial Court.

SUPREME COURT’S DECISION

 

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

          The Supreme Court largely relied on the decision held in the case of Hanumant regarding nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone.

Useful extract from the Hanumant’s case laid down by Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground far a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

 

Justice Fazal Ali and Justice Syed Murtaza

Date of Judgement : 17 July 1984