TITLE: In case of absence of direct evidences, circumstantial evidences can

be held to be admissible provided they fulfil the necessary pre-requisites

and the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish it beyond
reasonable doubt.

if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing
to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted This principle has a special
relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence."

Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda

Vs.

State of Maharashtra

(CASE BRIEF)

CASE NAME: Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra

CITATION: 1984 AIR 1622

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

BENCH: J. Syed Murtaza, J. Sabyasachi Mukharji, VARADARAJAN, J.

DECIDED ON: 17 July, 1984

RELEVANT SECTIONS AND STATUTES:

- Section 03,32,101,102,103,104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

- Article 136 of The Constitution of India, 1950
- Section 300, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

1. A marriage arranged and brought about through the intervention of

common friends of the families of the bride and bridegroom though made
a good start but ran into rough weather soon thereafter. The bride, Manju,
entertained high hopes and aspirations and was not only hoping but was
anxiously looking forward to a life full of mirth and merriment, mutual
love and devotion between the two spouses. She appears to be an
 extremely emotional and sensitive girl at the very behest cherished ideal
dreams to be achieved after her marriage, which was solemnised on
February 11, 1982 between her and the appellant, Sharad Birdhi chand
Sarda. Soon after the marriage, Manju left for her new marital home and
started residing with the appellant in Takshila apartments at Pune.
Unfortunately, however, to her utter dismay and disappointment she
found that the treatment of her husband and his parents towards her was
cruel and harsh and her cherished dreams seem to have been shattered to
pieces. Despite this shocking state of affairs she did not give in and kept
hoping against hope and being of a very noble and magnanimous nature
she was always willing to forgive and forget. As days passed by, despite
her most laudable attitude she found that "things were not what they
seem" and to quote her own words "she was treated in her husband house
as a labourer or as an unpaid maid-servant". She was made to do all sorts
of odd jobs and despite her protests to her husband nothing seems to have
happened. Even so, Manju had such a soft and gentle frame of mind as
never to complain to her parents-in-law, not even to her husband except
sometimes. On finding things unbearable, she did protest, and ex pressed
her feelings in clearest possible terms, in a fit of utter desperation and
frustration, that he hated her. Not only this, when she narrated her woeful
tale to her sister Anju in the letters written to her (which would be dealt
with in a later part of the judgment), she took the abundant care and
caution of requesting Anju not to reveal her sad plight to her parents lest
they may get extremely upset, worried and distressed. Ultimately, things
came to such a pass that Manju was utterly disgusted and disheartened
and she thought that a point of no-return had reached. At last, on the
fateful morning of June 12, 1982, i.e., nearly four months after her
marriage, she was found dead in her bed.
2. The case of prosecution was that the appellant was not at all interested in
her and had illicit intimacy with another girl, Ujvala, he practically
discarded his wife and when he found things to be unbearable he
murdered her between the night of June 11 and 12, 1982, and made a
futile attempt to cremate the dead body.
3. On the other hand the plea of the defence was that while there was a
strong possibility of Manju having been ill-treated and uncared for by her
husband or her in-laws, being a highly sensitive and impressionate
 woman she committed suicide out of sheer depression and frustration
arising from an emotional upsurge.
4. 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
High Court while confirming the judgment of the trial court affirmed the
death sentence and hence the present appeal by special leave was filed
before the Hon’ble Court.

ISSUES:

- Whether in the case of absence of direct evidence circumstantial evidence

can be admitted?
- WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN
TRANSACTION RESULTING IN ACTUAL DEATH.
- Whether the burden of proof can be shifted upon the defence?
- WHETHER FALSE PLEA/DEFENCE CAN BE USED TO FILL THE
INFIRMITITES IN PROSECUTION’S CASE.
- WHETHER THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION TO
CONVICT THE ACCUSED 1 AND AWARDING CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER OF HIS WIFE.

RATIO OF THE COURT:

- The Court stated that the High Court has mentioned as many as 17
circumstances in order to prove that the circumstantial evidence produced
by the prosecution was complete and conclusive, Some of 13 these
circumstances overlap, some are irrelevant and some cannot be taken into
consideration because they were not put to the appellant in his statement
under s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The law regarding the
nature and character of proof of circumstantial evidence has been settled
by several authorities of this Court as also of the High Courts, The locus
classicus of the decision of this Court is the one rendered in the case of
Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 where it
was held that the standard set provides the evidence to be substantially
 proven beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof in a criminal
case rests on the prosecution and not on the defence.

Moving further to the question of interpretation of sec. 32(1) of The Evidence

Act, 1872 the Court placed reliance on the case of Ratan Gond v. State of
Bihar  1959 AIR 18 and many other precedents were referred the Court pointed
out that Manju was a highly secretive woman and wanted to keep her personal
matters or secrets to herself except giving a rough idea or a passing glimpse of
her feelings only to those who were very close to her as friends or near
relations. The extract shows that perhaps in a spell of heavy emotions she had
written a very long letter to her sister whom she regarded as her best friend but
on second thought she tore it off lest it may fall in anybody's hands and she was
not prepared to take such a risk. This mentality and noble nature would be of
great assistance to us in assessing the probative value of the statements made by
her to her parents, sister and friend during her last visit to Beed. She has hinted
that hinted that she was passing through difficult times but was trying to control
herself as much as she could. She has further indicated that if things did not
improve then she may have to evolve some other method. The words "some
other way will have to be evolved" clearly gives a clue to her psychotic state of
mind and seem to suggest that the other method to get rid of all her troubles was
to commit suicide. It is pertinent to note that in the first two paragraphs of her
letter extracted above there is no indication nor any hint about the conduct of
her husband.

- The Court observed that these words are extremely prophetic and seem to
indicate that by that time she had almost made up her mind to end her life
instead of carrying on her miserable existence. As brevity is the soul of
wit, she directly hinted that she may not be able to meet her father or any
body naturally because when a life comes to an end there can be no such
question.
- The Court after analyzing and referring to the various circumstances
observed that the High Court instead of giving the benefit of this
important circumstance to the accused has given the benefit to the
prosecution which is yet another error in the approach made by the Eight
Court while assessing the prosecution evidence.
- From reviewing of the circumstances of the appellant, the Court stated
that it was of the opinion that the circumstances of the appellant have not
 been proved conclusively so as to raise an irresistible inference that
Manju's death was a case of blatant homicide.
- The Court also stated that the circumstances which were not put to the
appellant in his examination under s.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 have to be completely excluded from consideration.

On the nature and character of circumstantial evidence the court held that the
cardinal principle' of criminal jurisprudence that a case can be said to be proved
only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted
on pure moral conviction and laid down the five golden principles which
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence and held that the following 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. It may be noted here that this Court
indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not
‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved”
as was held by Apex Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra   where the following observations were made: [SCC
para 19, p.807:SCC (Cri) p.1047]
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 tedency.
4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, and
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.
- On the point of benefit of doubt the Court opined that the High Court
completely missed out on the point that where on the evidence two
possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the
prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is
undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt.
6) The Court held that the High Court must have given the benefit of doubt
to the appellant and held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
(Make sure the ratio contains answers to all the issues)
DECISION HELD: The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set
aside the judgement of the courts below and acquit the appellant Sharad Birdhi
Chand Sarda.

AUTHOR OF THE BRIEF: Bhagyashri