LANDMARK CASE
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 · Supreme Court of India · Criminal law
At a glance
- Citation: (1984) 4 SCC 116
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Criminal law
- In one line: The Court set five 'golden principles': circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every other hypothesis and form a complete chain.
1 Facts
A husband was convicted of poisoning his wife on circumstantial evidence.
2 Issue
When can a conviction rest on circumstantial evidence alone?
3 What the court decided
The Court set five 'golden principles': circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every other hypothesis and form a complete chain.
4 Why it matters
These are the standard test for circumstantial evidence.
5 Think about it
Try applying the five principles to a missing link in a hypothetical case.
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Criminal law
- Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1698
- Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
- Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1
- Basdev v. State of PEPSU AIR 1956 SC 488
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal TotameShatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.