GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY, BILASPUR, C.G.

SCHOOL OF LAW

SESSION 2020-21

PROJECT ON:

A Critical Analysis on

SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,

1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr SAGAR KUMAR JAISWAL
Assistant Professor
MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP

SUBMITTED BY:
ANIMESH PATHAK

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It feels great pleasure in submitting this research project to Dr. SAGAR

JAISWAL, Asst. Professor (MOOTCOURT AND INTERNSHIP), without
whose guidance this project would not have been completed successfully.

Next, I would like to sincerely thank my seniors, friends and family

members, whose suggestions and guidance assisted me throughout the
entire tenure of making the project. I would also like to express my special
thanks to those original thinkers, whom I have taken the privilege to quote.

Last but not the least, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude
towards the examiner who would take pains to go through the project. Though a
lot of care has been taken, there may be scope for some improvement. All
criticism and suggestions are kindly invited.

2
 CERTIFICATE

I am glad to submit this project report on “ A Critical Analysis of SHARAD BIRDHI

CHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88”
as a part of my academic assignment. The project is based on Research
methodology and further discusses the doctrinal method. I think this would be
significant for academic purposes as well as prove informative to all the readers.

Here though I declare that this paper is an original piece of research and the
borrowed text and ideas have been duly acknowledged.

Faculty Signature

________________

3
 DECLARATION

I, Animesh Pathak, 10th Semester of GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY do

hereby declare that this project is my original work and I have not copied this
project or any part thereof from any source without acknowledgement.

I am highly indebted to the authors of the books that I have referred in my

project as well as all the writers of all the articles and the owners of the
information taken from the website for it.

It is only because of their contribution and proper guidance of my faculty

advisor Assist. Prof. Dr SAGAR JAISWAL that I became able to gather light
on the subject.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT

2. INTRODUCTION

3. FACTS OF THE CASE

4. ARGUMENTS

5. DECISION OF THE COURT

6. REASONING APPLIED BY THE COURT TO ARRIVE AT THE

DECISION

7. CONCLUSION

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

5
 ABSTRACT

Evidence always plays an important role in the decision and conclusion of the case but
sometimes, the decision and the conclusion of the case depend upon the types of evidence.
Direct evidence is directly linked with the facts and the commission of an offence but the
circumstantial evidence does not have direct link with the fact and the commission of the
offence. It is generally based on the chain of the events which can be conclusively proved by
the prosecution. So, in this case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the District and High
Court erroneously take his decision which was rectified by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court discussed many points regarding circumstantial evidence and burden of proof. This
was a leading judgement in the law of evidence.

6
 INTRODUCTION

After the trial court and the High Court of Bombay ruled against the accused in the case, the
matter came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court through a SLP under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India against the judgment of a division bench of the Bombay High Court.
The case pertains to the death of one Manju who was the wife of the main accused (Sharad
Birdichand Sarda). The facts surrounding her death and evidences put forth paint a rough
sketch of the events leading up to the unfortunate death.

The deceased was in an unhappy marriage. She was depressed and sad about the ill-treatment
she received by her in-laws and her husband. Even the court observed that she was a sensitive
person and was depressed.

The conviction awarded by the lower courts was based loosely on appreciating circumstantial
evidence and by shifting the burden of proof on the accused.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 12th June 1982, in Takshila Apartment, the deceased (Manju) was found dead on her bed
who was a chemist. Before 4 month on 11th February 1982, she was married with 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 expectation to 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 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 different flat.

7
 ARGUMENTS

By prosecution-

The prosecution argued that the accused forcefully consumed the poison to deceased and also
mixed poison in any substance or glass of water and gave it to deceased. The prosecution also
argued that the accused did not call the two doctors who reside in the same apartment. The
prosecution filed case against the accused (sharad) and co-accused (Ramvilas, who lived in
the same apartment and Rameshwaram). The prosecution alleged that they jointly made
criminal conspiracy against the deceased and committed her murder.

By Defence-

The accused argued that there were no marks on the body of the deceased if the poison
consumed to her forcefully by him and she was a chemist so she can easily identify the
chemical. The defence also argued that the deceased committed suicide because she was
unhappy with her marriage and she had higher expectation from her marriage. The accused
also argued that the two doctors who reside in the apartment one of them was skin specialist
and another was child specialist. So, he called his family doctor.

8
 DECISION OF THE COURT

DISTRICT SESSION COURT-

The co-accused charged with the Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence)
and Section 120-B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy) under the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. The Session Court convicted sharad under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
granted 2 years rigorous punishment to co-accused on the ground of circumstantial evidence
i.e. letters and post-mortem report which showed that the death caused by consuming
poisonous (Potassium Cyanide) and the court declared the letter as dying declaration under
Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act.

HIGH COURT –

The District Court sent the death confirmation to High Court. The accused and co-accused
filed an appeal to the High Court and State also filed the revision for lesser punishment of co-
accused on the ground of adequacy of sentence. The High Court combine all three cases and
acquitted Rameshwaram and Ramvilas, co-accused but the High Court confirmed the
punishment of Sharad, Accused.

SUPREME COURT –

The Supreme Court set aside the order of High Court and District Session Court. The
Supreme Court also considered that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, not on
accused, the court cannot set off the bruise of the prosecution. The presumption always made
in the favour of the accused and the case was decided of accused and the “Benefit of Doubt”
given to the accused. The court also pointed that the conviction can only be given on the
ground of the circumstantial evidence when the evidence is not inherently less reliable.

9
 THE REASONING APPLIED BY THE COURT TO ARRIVE AT THE
DECISION

In the current case two concepts pertaining to Law of Evidence are dealt,

1. Burden of proof

The Criminal Justice system in India provides for an evidence to be proved before a court of
law in order to ascertain the guilt of the accused. Proving as per the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 as interpreted by several judicial pronouncements[2], the standard set provides the
evidence to substantially prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a
criminal case rests on the prosecution and not the defence.

2. Circumstantial Evidence

In many cases, the evidence is not direct which creates difficulty to prove a case beyond
reasonable doubt. In order to proof the case, the circumstantial evidence put along with the
general evidence to strengthen the case. The chain of the circumstantial events put together
like last appearance of a person, dying declaration or letters etc. The circumstantial evidence
also established the probability of the chain of event and it should be highly-reliable.

10
 CONCLUSION

In my opinion, this was a leading judgement on the significant role of the circumstantial
evidence in the case of the conviction of the offence. In this case, there was no direct
evidence 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 doubt always given to the
deceased. The opinion of the Supreme Court was right and the High Court and District
Session Court made erroneous decision as per my view.

11
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Website referred –

 https://blog.lawskills.in/2019/03/22/case-analysis-sharad-birdichand-sarda-v-state-of-
maharashtra-air-1984-sc-1622/
 https://www.ijalr.in/2020/12/sharad-birdichand-sarda-v-state-of.html
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1505859/

12