CASE ANALYSIS
TITLE: Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE FAZAL ALI
HON’BLE JUSTICE SYED MURTUZA
CITATION: 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88
AUTHOR: S M FAZALALI
PETITIONER: SHARAD BIRDI CHAND SARDA
RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17th July, 1984
CASE FACTS: On 12th June 1982, in Takshila Apartment, the deceased (Manju) was found dead on her bed who was a chemist. Before 4 months on 11th February 1982, she was married to the accused, Sharad. She wrote two letters to her sister (Anju) and one letter to her friend (Vahini), in which she wrote that she was unhappy with her marriage. Her in-laws and husband ill-treated her. She had more expectations of her in-laws and husband. She went to her mother’s home and after that, her father-in-law called her for her sister-in-law’s marriage. She came to her marital house and attended the wedding. She returned home with Rameshwaram (Accused brother) and his wife Anushka and a child at 11 PM. They both lived in the same apartment but in a different flat.
ISSUES:
- Whether this was a murder or a Manju taking her life by eating Potassium Cyanide?
- Whether Appellate should be given benefit of the doubt?
ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER: The prosecution argued that the accused forcefully consumed the poison to the deceased and also mixed poison in any substance or glass of water and gave it to the deceased. The prosecution also argued that the accused did not call the two doctors who reside in the same apartment. The accused argued that there were no marks on the body of the deceased if the poison was consumed by her forcefully by him and she was a chemist so she can easily identify the chemical.
ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT: The defence also argued that the deceased committed suicide because she was unhappy with her marriage and she had higher expectations from her marriage. The accused also argued that the two doctors who reside in the same building were a skin specialist and another a child specialist. So, he called his family doctor.
JUDGEMENT: The accused filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court considered that the prosecution does not prove his allegations conclusively. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and District Session Court. The Supreme Court also considered that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, not on the accused, the court cannot set off the bruise of the prosecution. The presumption was always made in the favour of the accused and the case was decided of the accused and the “Benefit of the Doubt” given to the accused. The court also pointed out that the conviction can only be given on the ground of circumstantial evidence when the evidence is not inherently less reliable.
CONCLUSION:
This was a leading judgment on the significant role of circumstantial evidence in the case of the conviction of the offence. In this case, there was no direct evidence to prevail and also there was no eye witness. So, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, we cannot convict a person for any offence unless the evidence is highly reliable. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution and the benefit of the doubt is always given to the deceased. The opinion of the Supreme Court was right and the High Court and District Session Court made an erroneous decision.
Written by MANSHI AGARWAL an intern under legal vidhiya
