Case: Raju Vs. The State by Inspector of Police

form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.10. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.11. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled of the right to be acquitted". 12. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952. 13. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343 ), wherein it was observed thus: "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, 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. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 14. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622 ). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must or ‘should and not ‘may be established; (2) 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; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 15. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180 ), State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261 ), Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on 7.7.2008) and Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu (Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2001 disposed of on 8.8.2008). 16. PW-7s evidence is clear and cogent. His presence at the spot has been established. He used to have business transactions with the deceased. He stated about the present appellant holding a handle of soil cutter. Though the deceased and the present appellant were engaged in exchange of hot words, that could not have given an impression to PW-7 that accused would take the life of the deceased. Therefore, the fact that he left the place on being told by the deceased to do so cannot be a ground to dis-believe his evidence. According to him he had seen the deceased and the accused engaged in wordy tussle around 9.00 p.m. The wife of the deceased PW-1 found his dead body at about 9.30 p.m. The time gap when the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and when his dead body was seen is not very large. Admittedly, the bone of contention between the deceased and the accused was non payment of the commission on account of which they were quarreling. The trial Court and the High Court have rightly held the appellant to be the author of the crime. We find no infirmity in the conclusion of the High Court to warrant interference.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.PW-7s evidence is clear and cogent. His presence at the spot has been established. He used to have business transactions with the deceased. He stated about the present appellant holding a handle of soil cutter. Though the deceased and the present appellant were engaged in exchange of hot words, that could not have given an impression to PW-7 that accused would take the life of the deceased. Therefore, the fact that he left the place on being told by the deceased to do so cannot be a ground to dis-believe his evidence. According to him he had seen the deceased and the accused engaged in wordy tussle around 9.00 p.m. The wife of the deceased PW-1 found his dead body at about 9.30 p.m. The time gap when the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and when his dead body was seen is not very large. Admittedly, the bone of contention between the deceased and the accused was non payment of the commission on account of which they were quarreling. The trial Court and the High Court have rightly held the appellant to be the author of the crime. We find no infirmity in the conclusion of the High Court to warrant interference.