SHARAD BIRDICHAND SARDA VS.

STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1984 SC 1622

Submitted By :
Mohd. Shabaz Anubhav Shukla
500077277 500077309
R450219157 R450219149
FACTS
◦ On 12 June 1982 she was married with Sharad who lives in Takshila Apartment
at Pune. But very soon she realized that shard was not a good man and he even
did not treat Manju Shree well . She was broked after realizing that he married
a guy who was not at all a good person.
◦ Broken manju went to her fathers house but on one day her father in law
requested her to attend her sister in law marriage.. On 11th of June they all
returned from the function. On next day i.e on 12th of June Manju Shree was
found dead. According to the prosecution story the last person who met
deceased was her husband. And in the PM it was observed that there are no
single marks on her body and dead was caused by the poison called Potassium
Cyanide.
ISSUE RAISE

1- whether this was a murder or a Manju has taken her life by eating
Potassium Cyanide
2- If sharad and his brother wanted to save Manjushree why they did not
call Dr who was living in his apartment but called his family Dr Lodha
who was living 1.5 km away from her apartment.
3- Weather letter written by Manjushree would consider as dying
declaration.
CASE MAP
◦ 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 . 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. 
RULE OF EVIDENCE
◦ Criminal proceedings reach a just and fair conclusion through the
various facts put forth via the examination of witnesses and
appreciation of evidence. The onus to prove guilt generally is on the
prosecution, and in order to do so, the guilt must be established
conclusively, and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
◦ In the current case two concepts pertaining to Law of Evidence are
dealt, the two of them will be discussed in brief by the researcher
before critically analysing the case in light of the two concepts.
.

◦  The current case two concepts pertaining to Law of

Evidence are dealt, the two of them will be discussed in
brief by the researcher before critically analysing the case
in light of the two concepts.
◦ 1. Burden Of Proof
◦ 2. Circumstantial Evidence
JUDGEMENT
◦ The judgment discusses and deliberates upon the concept of burden of proving
guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a chain of events which must yield only
one outcome, the one which proves the accused to be guilty.  The court laid
down that the onus of proving the guilt rests on the prosecution, and the
inability to defend oneself extensively should not be attributed to the accused is
a negative manner.  The facts and the hypothesis should be in line and there
should be apparent coherence between the two to be able to accept the
circumstantial evidences against the accused. 
THANK YOU
.