SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 17-07-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 101 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
88 
SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
July 17, 1984 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALl, A. VARADAR..UAN AND 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJJ, JJ.] 
Comtitution of India, 1950, Article 136-lnterferencc by the Supreme Court 
with the concurrent findings of fact of the conrts below, normally not permissible-
Special circumstance like errors of law, violation of well established principles of 
criminaljrtrisprudence 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/ink 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 J, 
Benefit of doubt-When two views are ·possible, one leading to tha guilt of 
rhe 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 tire accused under Section 313 of Crt. P.C.-Circumstances 
not put to the accused to explain, cannot be considered for convictio11-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 11 of 1974) Section 313. 
Ule appellant, Rameshwar, Birdhicband Sarda, -Ramvilas Rambagas 
Sarda, were accused 1, 2 and 3 respectively in Sessions Case No. 203 of 1982 on 
the file of the Additional Se5sions Judge, Pune. The appellant and the second 
accused are the sons of one Birdhichand of Pone whose family has- a cloth 
business. In addition, the appellant, a graduate in Chemical Engineering had 
-
, 
• 
SltARAD B. CHAND v. MAHAkASHTRA 
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 whil~ 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 Taksha~heela Apartments 
in Mukund Nagar area of Pun e. 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 sectionJ20B. Accused No. Jwas 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 under s.302 I.P.C. and all the three accused to rigorous 
imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each under s.I20B I.P.C. 
but did not award any sentence under s.201 read with s.120B. 
The appellant and the other two accused file Criminal Appeal No. 265/83 
against their conviction and the sentences awarded to them. The State filed a 
Criminal Revision application for enhancement of the sentence awarded to 
accused 2 and 3. The appeal as well as Criminal Revision application was 
heard along with confirmation case No. 3 of 1983 together by the Division 
Bench of the Bombay High Court which allowed the appellants appeal in part 
regarding his conviction and sentence under s.l20B I.P.C. but confirmed his 
convictio~ and sentence of death awarded under section 302 I.P.C., allowed the 
appeal of accused 2 and 3 in full and acquitted them and dismissed the Criminal 
Revision Application. Hence the appellant alone has come up before the 
Supreme Court after obtaining Special Leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.