Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136-Interference by the Supreme Court with the concurrent findings of fact of the conrts below, normally not permissible- Special circumstance like errors of law, violation of well established principles of criminal jurisprudence etc. would be necessary for interference.

Evidence-Circumstantial evidence, nature and proof of -Conditions precedent for conviction-Evidence Act Section 3 (Act 1 of 1972).

Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-Onus of proof-Prosecution mast prove every link of the chain and complete chain-Infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea A person cannot be convicted on pure moral conviction-False explanation can be used as additional link to fortify the prosecution case, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions.

Doctrine of Proximity concept of, nature and limits explained-Admissibility of statements and dying declarations under sections 8, 32 of the Evidence Act.

Murder by administration of poison-Circumstances that should be looked into before a conviction-Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) Section 300.

Evidence, appreciation of Evidence of interested witnesses, especially that of close relatives of the deceased-Duty of the Court-Evidence Act (Act I of 1872) Section 3.

Benefit of doubt-When two views are possible, one leading to the guilt of the accused and the other leading to his innocence, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused entitling his acquittal-Evidence Act (Act I of 1872) Sections 101 -104.

Examination of the accused under Section 313 of Crl. P.C.-Circumstances not put to the accused to explain, cannot be considered for conviction-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 11 of 1974) Section 313.

The appellant, Rameshwar, Birdhichand Sarda, Ramvilas Rambagas Sarda, were accused 1. 2 and 3 respectively in Sessions Case No. 203 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The appellant and the second accused are the sons of one Birdhichand of Pune whose family has a cloth business. In addition, the appellant, a graduate in Chemical Engineering had started a chemical factory at Bhosari, a suburb of Pune. The third accused is uncle of the appellant and the second accused. The appellant is the husband of Manjushree alias Manju while the second accused is the husband of Anuradha (P.W. 35). Birdhichand's family has its residential house at Ravivar Peth in Pune and owns a flat in a building known as Takshasheela Apartments in Mukund Nagar area of Pune. All the three accused were charged for the alleged offence of murder by poisoning on the night of 11/12.6.1982 of Manju the newly married wife of the first accused and the appellant herein under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 120B. Accused No. 3was also charged under section 201 read with Section 120B I.P.C. The whole case vested on the circumstantial evidence based on certain letters alleged to have been written by the deceased to some of the witnesses and other statements of the deceased to them and the medical report. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found all the three accused guilty as charged, convicted them accordingly and sentenced the appellant to death under s.302 I.P.C. and all the three accused to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 cach under s.120B I.P.C. but did not award any sentence under s.201 read with s.120B.

The appellant and the other two accused file Criminal Appeal No. 265/83 against their conviction and the sentences awarded to them. The State filed a Criminal Revision application for enhancement of the sentence awarded to accused 2 and 3. The appeal as well as Criminal Revision application was heard along with confirmation case No. 3 of 1983 together by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court which allowed the appellants appeal in part regarding his conviction and sentence under s.120B I.P.C. but confirmed his conviction and sentence of death awarded under section 302 I.P.C., allowed the appeal of accused 2 and 3 in full and acquitted them and dismissed the Criminal Revision Application. Hence the appellant alone has come up before the Supreme Court after obtaining Special Leave.