Can someone be convicted solely based on circumstances? If so, then to what extent?

In the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Supreme Court laid guidelines on the admissibility of evidence based on circumstances.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that does not directly prove a fact but draws logical connections or connects the dots to conclude. For example,

• Fingerprints discovered at the scene of the crime.
• Someone seen leaving the scene
• Someone seen with the victim before the crime
• Someone carrying a suspicious item, etc.

Unlike direct evidence (such as eye-witnesses), which supports the case without further inference, circumstantial evidence needs logical reasoning and inferences.

But circumstantial evidence is too vague and risky.

Therefore, in the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case, the court gave 5 golden rules on the use of circumstantial evidence.

Facts of the case:

The bride, Manju, was married to the appellant, Mr. Sharad, on February 11th, 1982. She had high hopes with her marriage and expectation of love, as any girl would do.

But upon her arrival in her new matrimonial home, things turned out as something she did not expect. She was made to do odd and laborious jobs, used as a servant, and only valued as an ‘unpaid maid’. Despite her repeated complaints to her husband, nobody heard her pleas.

On her repeated woes, her husband had only one thing to say: that he “hated” her.

Broken down with such an environment, she wrote to her sister, Anju. She would tell her how her in-laws and husband were treating her, how she was breaking every day, but amidst this all, she requested her (Anju) to not tell their parents. As their old hearts will not be able to take it.

In one of her letters, she mentioned to her sister that on 17 March 1982, Sharad took her to a hotel; there he introduced her to a woman named Ujvala. He said to Manju, “You must act according to the dictates and orders of Ujvala if you want to lead a comfortable life with me” making things clear that Manju was nothing more than a maid in his eyes and the real mistress was Ujvala.

The repeated torments, labor, and lack of her own husband’s love broke Manju.

Ultimately, the final straw came. On the morning of June 12, 1982, just 4 months after her marriage….Manju was found dead in her bed.

Potassium cyanide was found in her postmortem report.

So was it a suicide or planned deliberate murder?

Evidences:

1. Rameshwar Chitlange (PW 2)—Father of the Deceased

stated that Manju requested Birdichand (father of the accused) to allow her to go to her house. Upon arrival, she hugged her mother and broke down. Upon his investigation about the marriage, Manu stated that she was very unhappy in her marriage. Her husband hated her. She was anxious and scared to go back.

“I was having this talk with Birdichand On the first floor of my house, Manju heard this from the staircase, called me out in the ground portion of the house and told me that she was not in a position to go to the house of the accused. Since she was in a state of fear or extreme fear in her mind and she also told me that she was not prepared to go to the house of the accused“

2. Bai (PW 20) – Mother of the Deceased

Manju visited her mother on 2 April 1982, during her 8-10 day visit, she appeared happy and cheerful. This was her 3rd visit, right after Sharad revealed his illicit affair to her (17 March 1982).

But on 12th April while attending the funeral of her grandfather, Maju revealed to her mother that she was unhappy in her marriage.

“Manju told her mother that she was receiving a very shabby treatment from her husband and while narrating her miserable plight she told her about two important incidents which had greatly upset her-

(1) that she happened to come across a love letter written by , Ujwala Kothari, to her husband

(2) that on one occasion the appellant told Manju that he was tired of his life and did not want to live any more and, therefore, wanted to commit suicide. …

She then informed her mother that when this talk was going on she (Manju) herself volunteered to commit suicide. Thereafter, Sharad put forth a proposal under which both of them were to commit suicide and they decided to write notes showing that they were committing suicide. On hearing this plan from Sharad, Manju told him that she was not inclined to commit suicide as she had not lost all hope of life and that she had expressed her desire to commit suicide only because he had said that he would do so“

3. Rekha (PW 3, “Vahini”) – Friend of the Deceased

Rekha also told the same incidents of Manju being unhappy with her marriage and Shard having an illicit affair. Along with this, since he was a chemical engineer, he had lots of friends.

But adding on to this, Manju also said that “I am not going to spare this, I will not allow this, his bad relations even though a blot may come to our family and I have decided likewise.” Depicting a sort of pyschotic behaviour.

4. Meena Mahajan (PW 5) – Friend

Meena was not at all connected with the family of PW 2 but is alleged to be a friend of Manju and she says that she found Manju completely disheartened and morose and she started weeping and crying while narrating her said story. The witness goes on to state that Manju was so much terrified of the appellant that she was afraid of her life at his hands.

Unlike her closest friends, such as Rekha, Meena went to the extent of stating that Manju was afraid of her life with Sharad.

5. Dr. Banerjee (PW 33) – Post-mortem Doctor

In his report, Dr Banerjee had scored out the word ‘can be a case of suicidal death’ and his explanation was that since he had written the words “time since death’ twice, therefore, the subsequent writing had been scored out by him.

6. Dr. Lodha (PW 24) & Dr. Gandhi (PW 25) – Doctors Called to Examine the Body

Dr. Lodha was a family doctor of the appellant’s family and it was quite natural to send for him when the appellant suspected that his wife was dead. … he did not try to support the defence case and was frank enough to tell the accused and those who were present there that it was not possible for him to ascertain the cause of death which could only be done by a post-mortem. … Dr. Gandhi was called and he endorsed the opinion of Dr. Lodha.

7. K. N. Kadu (PW 28) – Resident at Apartments

This witness corroborates PW-7 and stated that he had heard the sound of a rickshaw near the apartments when the wife of A-2, Manju and 3 children entered the apartments and went to their rooms. He further says that after about 15 minutes he saw the appellant coming on a scooter and while he was parking his scooter the witness asked him why did he come so late to which he replied that he was busy in some meeting.

Court’s reasonings—

The case seemed to be filled with inconsistencies by the court.

While the testimonies were helpful, they were inconsistent and exaggerated in nature.

The exaggerated claims by Manju’s parents about her fear of the accused, contradictions between oral statements and her letters.

While Manju’s letters expressed emotional distress and suicidal inclinations, they never directly related to Sharad.

The medical evidence was inconclusive, as the postmortem initially noted suicide but later changed to cyanide poisoning without concluding homicide.

Manju’s revengeful words show that she was so bored and disgusted with her life that she will not tolerate this even if a blot comes to the family. These words hint at her making up her mind to end her life despite whatever happens and put trouble on her husband and his family.

While Meena’s statements were moving, Manju never depicted anything of such sort (fear of her life at her husband’s hands) in any of her letters. These statements seem exaggerated.

Sharad’s attempt to cremate the body at the earliest and being displeased at the facts that the hospital did not give him a death certificate indicated suspicion.

All of these pieces of evidence were not conclusive in nature. The court could not decide if it was a suicide or a homicide.

Court’s decision

The court heavily relied upon Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952), which stated that

“1) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved…
2) It must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

based on this, the only conclusive evidences were-

(1) Written dying declaration by the deceased in her letters, two of which were addressed to her sister Anju and one her friend Vahini.

(2) The oral statements made by the deceased to her father (PW 2), mother (PW 20), Sister (PW 6) and her friend (PW 3) and also to PWs 4 and 5 showing her state of mind shortly before her death and the complaints that she made regarding the ill-treatment by her husband.

(3) Evidence showing that the appellant was last seen with the deceased in the room until the matter was reported to the police.

(4) The unnatural and incriminating conduct of the appellant.

(5) The medical evidence taken along with the report of the chemical examiner, which demonstrably proves that it was a case of homicide, completely rules out the theory of suicide as alleged by the appellant.

After a long deliberation on all the evidence, the court declared that it was a homicide.

After this case, where there were no no clear conclusive evidences, the court made logical reasoning and inferences to reach conclusions.

To take care of such similar cases in future, to help the court, the hon’ble court came up with 5 golden rules.

The 5- Golden rules.

i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The presence of ‘should’ here signifies that the circumstances implicating the accused must be conclusively proven (“must be” established, not “may be”).
Example: If the accused was seen near the crime scene, this fact must be proven beyond doubt through credible evidence.

ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
That is, if evidence is found, it should only be explainable in relation to proving guilt, and there can be no other plausible explanation.
Example: If the accused’s fingerprints are found on a murder weapon, this must not be explainable by any reason other than their involvement in the crime.

iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
That is, they should not be ambiguous.
Example: Forensic evidence (e.g., DNA match) that directly links the accused to the crime.

iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
There can be no other scenarios except the accused being guilty. In other words, any evidence suggesting the occurrence of a different event that might explain the crime (excluding the accused) must be ruled out.
Example: The accused dying by an arrow instead of a bullet, or the accused firing at something else but the bullet hitting the deceased after deflection from a surface.

v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and it must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
That is, the court should establish an unbreakable chain of events regarding the crime: from motive, to preparation, to execution.
Example: A quarrel between the parties, preparation for the crime by taking a gun, taking the deceased to the field, and then shooting him. This creates a chain of events supporting the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt.

Conclusion

That’s how this case changed the entire criminal judicial system. It made it easy for courts to deal with ambigious and inconclusive cases.

Cases where there are no direct and clear evidences, just testimonis, speculations and words.

This case stands as a landmark in the Indian Criminal Jurispurdence and will continue to be used until another baffling case strikes Indian courts.