Jus Corpus Law Journal

Open Access Law Journal – Copyright © 2022 – ISSN 2582-7820

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Non-Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, which permits
unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the
original work is properly cited.

Case Comment: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra

Sheetal Potalea

a
ILS Law College, Pune, India

Received 16 October 2022; Accepted 24 October 2022; Published 28 October 2022

__________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Evidence often proves to be the basis of the conviction or acquittal of the accused in various
cases. The importance of direct evidence in a case cannot be refuted but in the absence of direct
evidence, it is the circumstantial evidence that helps decide the fate of the accused. The chain of
evidence must be completely proven and a close-knit network of happenings based on
circumstantial evidence must be justified by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt to
ensure the conviction of the accused. The case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda vs State of
Maharashtra is a landmark judgment in the law of evidence which emphasized the five golden
principles for deciding cases based on circumstantial evidence.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 The marriage of Manju and the appellant Sharad Birdhichand Sarda was solemnised on
February 11, 1982. Post-marriage Manju started residing with the appellant at Takshila
apartments in Pune. Manju had hopes that she will have a happy and successful married
life.

143
 POTALE: SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

 Unfortunately, Manju found the behaviour of her husband and her in-laws towards her,
antithetical to her expectations. Manju tried to cope with the household for ensuring
peace yet failed to gather up her dream of a happy marriage.
 As time passed by, Manju realized “things were not what they seem” and in her very
own words, “she was treated in her husband’s house as a labourer or as an unpaid
maidservant”.
 Manju protested this injustice yet to no avail. Her attempts to express her frustration
resulting from her husband's behaviour were all in vain.
 Manju communicated the happenings to her sister Anju through letters written to her.
After a point, Manju felt that a point of no return had been reached’.
 On June 13, 1982, a betrothal ceremony of the appellant’s sister was scheduled
 On the fateful day of June 12, 1982, Manju was found dead in her bed.
 On the issue of the cause of the death, the prosecution blamed the appellant for having
an illicit affair that led him to murder his wife Manju on the night of June 11, 1982. While
the defendants claimed that Manju committed suicide.
 The Hon’ble High Court and the trial court had both rejected the defendant's claim and
relied on medical evidence to decide that it was a case of homicide. Both courts found
that the appellant had administered a strong dose of potassium cyanide to Manju.
 The Hon’ble High Court confirmed the judgment of the trial court and affirmed the death
sentence. The appellant then approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court through a special
leave petition.

ISSUES INVOLVED

 Supreme Court’s interference under Article 1361 of the Indian Constitution.

1 Constitution of India 1950, art. 136

144
 JUS CORPUS LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 3, ISSUE 1, SEPTEMBER – NOVEMBER 2022

 The relevance of the previous conduct of the accused in the context of Section 83 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
 The conditions of admissibility of circumstantial evidence in deciding the committing of
a crime by the accused.
 The nature and limits of the doctrine of proximity.
 The relevance of the last seen theory in the present case.
 Should the appellant be given the benefit of the doubt?

ARGUMENTS RAISED

Appellant's argument

The appellant claimed that Manju was not administered poison by him instead it was Manju
who committed suicide because of frustration. The appellant used the following defences to
prove his innocence:

 As soon as he came to know about the death of his wife he called for 2 doctors and
followed their instructions about sending the body for post-mortem and also informed
the police.
 Manju has mentioned the circumstances in her letters which indicate a strong possibility
of her committing suicide. The present case is not at all covered by clause (1) of Section
32 of the Indian Evidence Act.
 The translated letters of Manju submitted by the appellant showed that she was a highly
secretive woman.
 A high number of interpolations in the post-mortem report including the interpolation
related to the position of the tongue.
 It was highly improbable that the appellant would choose a day just before the betrothal
ceremony of his sister to murder Manju. The betrothal ceremony is of paramount
importance in the appellant's community.

3 Indian Evidence Act 1872, s 8

145
 POTALE: SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

 The oral evidence of five witnesses is inadmissible under section 32(1) of the Indian
Evidence Act

Respondent’s Arguments

The Additional Solicitor General had the following arguments:

 The statements of witnesses indicated that Manju was distressed and Manju’s statement
while her stay in Pune about the behaviour of the appellant towards her indicated the
motive of the appellant to murder her.
 Manju was 4-6 weeks pregnant and the appellant must have realized that later it would
be very difficult to murder Manju and if the child was born it would be difficult for him
to maintain his relationship with Ujvala Kothari
 The Additional Solicitor General relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Court in the case
of Deonandan Mishra v The State of Bihar4 to state that if the defence case is false it would
constitute an additional link to fortify the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

Bench - Justice S.Murtaza Fazal Ali, Justice A.Varadarajan & Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji.

The trial court as well as the high court have both rejected the theory of suicide and found that
the appellant has murdered Manju by administering a strong dose of Potassium Cyanide. Both
have relied on medical evidence to show that it was a clear case of homicide and not suicide.
The High Court while confirming the judgment of the trial court has affirmed the death
sentence. Hence, this appeal for special leave

Murder by poisoning or suicide

The Hon’ble Court stated four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction:

 The clear motive of the accused is to administer the poison.

4 Deonandan Mishra v State of Bihar [1955] AIR 801

146
 JUS CORPUS LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 3, ISSUE 1, SEPTEMBER – NOVEMBER 2022

 The deceased died because of the same poison which was administered.
 The accused possessed the poison.
 The accused had an opportunity to administer the poison

The prosecution fails on the ground that it was unable to prove possession of the poison with
the accused, based on the letters of the deceased a reasonable possibility of suicide cannot be
excluded.

Circumstantial evidence

Before a case against the accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be
fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in

Hanumat's v State of MP

 The circumstances from which the guilt is to be drawn must or should be fully
established.
 The facts established should only be consistent with the guilt of the accused and there
should not be any explainable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
 The circumstances should have a conclusive nature.
 Circumstances should exclude every other hypothesis.
 The chain of evidence must be so complete that it does not leave any ground in favour of
the innocence of the accused.

The arguments raised and the facts do not fully satisfy the given conditions, and the guilt of the
accused has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 32(𝟏)5 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 32 makes the statement of a person who dies admissible provided it relates to the cause
of death. Under Indian law only the statement which relates directly to the cause of death is

5 Hanumant v State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] SC 343

147
 POTALE: SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

admissible. Whenever the test of proximity is extended beyond the immediate it must be done
with great care and caution. The statements, in this case, help to determine if she was in a state
of mind of committing suicide

Benefit of doubt

When based on available evidence two possibilities exist such that one is in favour of the
prosecution and one in favour of the accused, in such a case the accused is entitled to the benefit
of the doubt.

SUPREME COURT’S INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE INDIAN

Where the High Court overlooks relevant facts or fails to apply well-established principles or
refuses to give the benefit of doubt to the accused despite apparent facts, the Supreme Court is
duty-bound to step in and correct. Therefore, the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the
appellant was acquitted.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

In my opinion, in criminal cases which result in punishments in case of conviction, there should
exist proper scrutiny of facts and circumstances. This scrutiny should provide a fair chance for
the accused to prove his innocence. In cases based on purely circumstantial evidence, it is sine
qua non to provide an opportunity for the accused to refute claims of his guilt. Criminal
activities disturb social peace which results in social and popular anger and frustration. This
popular pressure may influence the agencies of government to fasten the investigation
procedures and deliver speedy justice. However, in the pursuit of speedy justice, the principles
of fair trial may be compromised thereby hampering the purpose of the judiciary. The present
case emphasizes a complete chain of circumstantial evidence being proven such that no
hypothesis in support of the accused’s innocence is present. This ensures fair trial and justice
thereby reinforcing faith in the judiciary. This case is a landmark judgment that clarified the
position of circumstantial evidence in India.

148