Date of Judgment: 19th July 1984
Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 745 of 1983
Bench: S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
            A. Vardarajan, J.
            Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
Parties: Appellant– Sharad Birdhichand Sarda.
             Respondents – The State of Maharashtra.

SUBJECT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), has addressed the issues pertaining to the principles of circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof required for conviction in criminal cases, The Court analysed the evidence presented in detail and examined the reliability of the circumstantial evidence in arriving at the accused’s guilt. The judgment stands as evidence of the stringent standards of proof required in criminal cases by setting important examples of how circumstantial evidence is determined in the Indian Penal Code, also the Hon’ble court had further laid down the “Golden Principles” meaning the Panchsheel of the proof of the case which is based on the circumstantial evidence.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302 – which states that murder is punishable by death or life imprisonment and the accused shall also be liable to a fine.
• Section 498 A – which states that if a woman’s spouse or relative of her husband exposed her to cruelty, then he along with the family members would be imprisoned for a time that may last up to three years, as well as a fine.
• Section 304B – which states that when a woman dies within seven years of marriage as a result of burns or bodily injury, or if it is revealed that before her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative of the husband in connection with dowry demand, the woman’s death will be regarded as dowry death.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Section 216 – states that any court of law at any given point of time, before the final judgment is pronounced, can add other charges as well and the same shall be informed and explained to the accused in question.
• Section 313 – states that to enable the guilty individually to clarify any situations showing up in the corroboration against him, the Court may at any stage, without initially warning the accused, can ask such questions to him as the Court considers necessary in any inquiry or trial.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• Section 32(1) – states that the statements made by a person on the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in his death are important when the cause of death is in issue.
• Section 8 – states that the relevance of purpose, preparation, previous conduct of the accused’s behaviour before to the commission of the crime/offense, and the subsequent conduct of the accused conduct following the commission of the offense.

Constitution of India, 1949:

• Article 161 – The governor of a state must have the authority to award pardons, reprieves, respite, or remissions of penalty, as well as to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person guilty of an offense against any law related to a topic withing the scope of the State’s executive authority.

BRIEF FACTS

• In this instant petition, where Rameshwar, the appellant along with Birdhi Chand and Ramvilas Rambagas Sarda, who were the accused no.1,2 and 3 respectively, before the Additional sessions judge in Pune, in which they all faced charges related to the charges meted out.
• Rameshwar and the second accused are the sons of Birdhichand of Pune, whose family is known to be involved in the textile business. Besides, Rameshwar, a pharmacy graduate, had started a pharmacy in Bhosari, a suburb of Pune.
• The third accused is the uncle of Rameshwar and the second accused. Rameshwar is married to Manjusri, also known as Manju, while the second accused is married to Anuradha. The Birdhichand family lives in Pune’s Ravivar Peth and has an apartment in the Takshasheela apartments in Mukund
• The trio poisoned Manju, the newly married wife of Rameshwar on the night of 11/12.6.1982 under Section 302 I.P.C. Read with Section 120b. Besides, the third accused was facing charges under Section 201, Section 120B I.P.C.
• The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence such as purported death certificates, statements to witnesses and medical reports.
• After a trial, all three were charged and convicted. The appellant was sentenced to death under Section 302 I.P.C. under, all three were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 2,000 each under Section 120B I.P.C. No penalty was imposed under Section 201 read with Section 120B.
• The appellant and others filed Criminal Appeal No. 265/83 and appealed to the court of appeals and the conviction and sentence were imposed. In addition, the State filed a motion for criminal revision to enhance the sentences of the second and third defendants.
• A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court heard the appeal and the criminal review petition simultaneously. The court granted partial bail to the appellant, modified his conviction and sentence under Section 120B I.P.C., but reversed the sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. The appeals of the second and third accused were fully allowed, resulting in their acquittal. The application for criminal investigation was refused.
• Consequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court alone on special leave.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the Supreme Court’s intervention under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution is justified in the context of the appellant’s case, and if so, to what extent that is applicable?
• Can the nature of the incident be conclusively determined as murder by poisoning or suicide and what implications does this determination have on the present scenario?
• How should the statements made by the deceased be evaluated under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and what weigh should be given to them in the proceedings?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

In the learned District Court –

• The prosecution initiated legal proceedings against the defendant, Sharad, along with his co-accused, Ramvilas and Rameshwaram, who were residing together.
• Allegations from the prosecution suggested a collaborative effort by the accused to conspire against and murder the deceased.
• The co-accused faced charges under relevant sections of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, including Section 201 (pertaining to the concealment of evidence) and Section 120-B (dealing with punishment for criminal conspiracy).
• Following a trial at the sessions court, Sharad was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while the co-accused received a two-year imprisonment sentence. The verdict relied on circumstantial evidence, such as letters and post-modern reports indicating death by poisoning. Positing the court deemed the letter as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, thereby influencing the outcome of the case.

In the Hon’ble High Court –

• The district transmitted the death certificate to the High Court. Both the accused and the co-accused lodged appeals with the High Court, while concurrently, the state petitioned for a reconsideration of the co-accused’s sentence, citing its perceived disproportionality.
• Consolidating all the three matters, the High Court acquitted Rameshwaram and Ramvilas, the co-accused, yet decided to upheld Sharad’s punishment.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANTS

• The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended that he did not administer poison to Manju and asserted that she took her own life due to frustration. To bolster his contentions, the appellant put forth the following defence in his regard:
• Upon learning of his wife’s demise, the appellant promptly sought medical assistance, and adhering to the advice provided by two physicians’ regarding the post-mortem examination and police notification.
• Manju’s letters, as translated by the appellant, illustrate that the deceased likely to her own life, citing the circumstances outlined in her correspondence. Additionally, he raised doubts about the lawful admissibility of both written and verbal dying declarations.
• He argued that these declarations cannot be admitted either under Section. 32 or section 8 of the Evidence Act, furthermore the appellant asserted that the current case does not fall within the purview of clause (1) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act.
• Additionally, the contents of this letter portray Manju as a deeply private individual and numerous discrepancies exist within the post-mortem report, including a discrepancy regarding the positioning of the deceased’s tongue.
• Also, it appears highly improbably that the appellant would orchestrate Manju’s murder on the eve of his sister’s engagement ceremony, an event of paramount significance within his community.
• To which the counsels pointed out that as per the testimony of the witness, the appellant requested his mother to accompany Manju with Shobha to the hotel, without knowing that Shobha would be unavailable, and if the appellant harbored malicious intentions of humiliating or distressing Manju by having Ujvala present, he would not have instructed his mother to include Shobha, as it would risk the matter becoming public.
• This inherent implausibility further undermines the credibility of the entire narrative.
• Pursuant to section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, oral testimony from five witnesses is deemed inadmissible.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

• The Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants stated that ‘Witness’ testimony Manju’s distress, and her statements while in Pune regarding the appellant’s conduct towards her imply a motive for his alleged involvement in her murder.
• Further, Manju’s pregnancy, estimated to be between 4 to 6 weeks, adds complexity to the appellant’s purported motive, the prosecution contends that the appellant would have been aware that killing Manju would pose difficulties afterward, particularly in preserving his relationship with Ujvala Kothari, and especially if the child were to be born.
• References were made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Deonandan Mishra v. The State of Bihar, wherein it was established that if the defence’s version of events is deemed untrue, it serves to bolster the prosecution’s case. This precedent underscores the importance of scrutinizing the appellant’s defence, as it could potentially strengthen the prosecution’s argument.
• They further emphasized the testimony of witnesses PW’s 2,3,6 and 20, suggesting that these witnesses directly observed the mental anguish and distress experienced by the deceased, indicating the motive for the accused to murder her. These witnesses also recounted statements made by the deceased about the ill-treatment she endured from her husband strengthening the prosecution’s case.
• The defence also offered another circumstance where the deceased, fed up with her husband’s abuse, took her own life as an act of revenge or out of sheer desperation, and said this case was instructive under circumstances including the subsequent discovery of his body. This logical possibility of suicide cannot be safely ruled out, they said.
• Moreover, the defendants emphasized the doctrine that the facts must meet only the guilt of the accused, i.e. cannot be explained on any other theory It was held that the circumstances must focus entirely on the guilt of the accused, a standard which the prosecution case was held to have failed to meet.
• In sum, the defendants argued that the evidence presented did not favourably establish the accused’s guilt and offered alternative explanations, including the decedent’s death by homicide, which they argued could not be safely admitted as challenging the prosecution case by emphasizing inconsistencies and lack of conclusive evidence.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that the legal principles governing the analysis of circumstantial evidence have been well clarified by several authoritative decisions of this Court and of the High Courts in Hanuman v. State.
• In the case of Mahajan of Madhya Pradesh, J.K. Mahajan, J., said that “undoubtedly in the circumstances, emphasized the necessity of any further presumptions and omissions, must be convincingly shown that, in probability of all persons, the act in question was committed by the accused.”
• This precedent has been further adopted and clarified by this Court in Dharambir Singh v. Govt. State of Punjab case.
• The court further reasoned that, Turning to the interpretation of Section 32(1) of The Evidence Act, S.K. In Ratan Gond v. In the case of State of Bihar, is a doctrine, he specifically explained the importance of statements under clause (1) of Section 32, emphasizing that such statements must relate to the cause of death of the declarant or any relevant circumstances if any the cause of their deaths.
• They said that the admissibility of a claim does not depend on the ultimate outcome of the case, but on whether the cause of the declarant’s death is relevant to the suit Furthermore, they define “circumstances of a claim,” which including immediate acts and declarations of the event in question.
• Adding to which the Hon’ble Court cited the decision, rather a landmark decision upheld by this Court is Pakala Narayana Swamy v Samrat, in which Lord Atkin laid down a comprehensive set of tests for the admissibility of statements under section 32(1) Lord Atkin explained that the circumstances must is directly related to the conduct which caused the death of the declarant The definition emphasizes the importance of necessity and urgency in determining the admissibility of claims under section 32(1).
• Furthermore, the accused filed an application for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the High Court and the District Sessions Court.
• Besides, the Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused. Despite being given the “benefit of the doubt” by reaffirming the presumption of innocence in Favor of the accused and ultimately ruling in Favor of the accused; the court emphasized that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence must meet the credibility standard.
• Since the prosecution has not properly proved the case against the appellant, due the lack of direct evidence, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the judgments of the lower courts and acquitted the appellant Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarada on of all the charges and consequently, the court ordered his immediate release.
• Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Penal Code was upheld.

CONCLUSION

Allowing the appeal the Court ordered the appellants to be acquitted and the court was unable to aver the statement of the declarant on her deathbed because the declaration was made without the presence of the concerned doctors.

A thorough analysis of evidence and circumstances is important in criminal cases, as it has important consequences upon conviction. This investigation should give the accused a reasonable opportunity to defend their innocence. Significant criminal activities disrupt social cohesion and create public anger and discontent, especially in cases that rely solely on circumstantial evidence to give the accused the opportunity to dismiss criminal charges.

The resulting pressure may push officials to accelerate the pursuit of justice. However, basic principles of due process can be undermined in the wake of expeditious legal processes, thereby undermining the integrity of the judiciary. This ensures a fair and just trial, thereby increasing confidence in the justice system. This landmark decision significantly affects the treatment of circumstantial evidence in the Indian legal system.

• Instagram
• LinkedIn
• WHATSAPP COMMUNITY