1

INTRODUCTION (CHAPTER1)

Circumstantial Evidence

It “is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which
conclusion of guilt is drawn not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so
established should be of conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any other
hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the evidence must be so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. It
needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely indication of the court
can form the basis of the conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the
care taken to scrutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof. In the chain of
circumstantial evidence all the circumstances should be established by independent evidence and
they should form a complete chain bringing home the guilt to the accused without giving room to
any other” hypothesis.

For a “crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed
and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the
Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial
evidence. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain
inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently,
circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other
facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain
of circumstances from which existence of the principle fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
When a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only
when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other” person1. In case of Kusuma Ankama Rao V
State of A.P2, The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on are:

1
Liyakat vs State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008 SC 1537
2
AIR 2008 SC 2819

2
 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.

No one can be convicted on circumstantial evidence unless it is quite incompatible with the
innocence of the accused. To prove by circumstantial evidence four things are essential3:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn must be fully established,
(2) All the facts should be consistent with the hypothesis,
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency an
(4) The circumstances should, to moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis but the
one proposed to be proved.

LITERATURE REVIEW

1. The Law of Evidence, Batuk Lal -This book has helped the author to understand the
meaning and classification of evidences under section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Meaning of circumstantial evidence, principles relating to circumstantial evidence and
weakness of defense has been taken from book. It also gives the detailed account of
circumstantial evidence including understanding the concept of “beyond reasonable
doubt”.

2. Principles of the Law of Evidence: A study of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Avatar
Singh -the author has taken various case laws relating to this topic from this book
including cases where circumstantial evidence was not convincing and also cases where
3
Mohd. Sabr Vs Rex, AIR 1952 All 796

3
 circumstantial evidence was convincing. This book has also helped author to understand
the principles applied in the cases.

3. The Evidence Act, KD Gaur- The author has taken the topic “Last seen theory” from
this book. This book has helped the author to understand the last seen theory of
circumstantial evidence whether the guilt of the accused can be established and also how
burden of proof is shifted.

4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence – The author has taken various cases from
this book. This book has helped author to analyze the cases relating to conviction when it
is done purely on circumstantial evidence in offence relating to murder and the principles
to be considered to establish circumstantial evidence.

5. C.D. Field’s Commentary on Law of Evidence -The author has taken the rules,
principles and various case laws from this book. This book has also helped author to
understand the cases in which conviction has been done beyond reasonable doubt and
also the conditions to establish chain of circumstances.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology “adopted is largely analytical and descriptive. Doctrinal research methodology
has been adopted to tackle and prepare the required theory in the instant paper. Reliance has been
placed largely on secondary sources like books, journals, newspaper reports, websites and” other
resources.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Can conviction be done if chain of circumstances not established for circumstantial

evidence?

2. Can conviction be done if circumstantial evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt?

4
CHAPTERISATION

1. In this research Chapter 1, titled ‘Introduction’, in its various parts, deals with the
meaning of Circumstantial Evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it also lays the
test and conditions to establish circumstantial evidences.

2. In this research Chapter 2, titled ‘Golden Principles based on circumstantial

evidence”. The Supreme Court described Five Golden Principles laid down in Hanumant
v. state of MP , Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. It
also includes rules to be observed in case of circumstantial evidence.

3. In this research Chapter 3, titled ‘Cases of murder finally decided by the Supreme
Court of India” where convictions were based purely on circumstantial, evidence and
the principles applied”. This chapter deals with the cases on circumstantial evidences
including cases when chain of circumstances is not established.

4. In this research Chapter 4, titled “Last seen theory” cases are dealt to analyze the theory
and to understand the concept of last seen in chain of circumstances.

6. In this Chapter 5, titled ‘Conclusion’ puts forward the meaning and attempts to answer
the research questions and analysis of cases of murder finally decided by the Supreme
Court of India where convictions were based purely on circumstantial, evidence.

5
CHAPTER 2

In Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 4 , the Supreme Court described Five
Golden Principles laid down in Hanumant v. State of MP5 , Panchsheel of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence. These rules are as follows:

1. The circumstances “from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely
may be guilty before a court can convict, and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and
‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure” conclusions.

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 any possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

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 that act must have been done by the” accused.

It was further held that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the
infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a false defense or plea.

The Supreme Court cited a passage in Para 13 from Sir Alfred Wills’ book “wills’
circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) containing rules as to evaluation of circumstantial
evidence as under:

1. The facts alleged as basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond
reasonable doubt connected with factum probandum.

2. The burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which
infers legal accountability.
4
AIR 1984 SC 1622
5
AIR 1952 SC 343

6
3. In all cases, whether 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
in the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation.

5. If there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be
acquitted.

In “circumstantial evidence also when the facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been
proved. Men do not act wholly without motive. Failure to discover the motive of the offence
does not signify the non-existence of the crime. The failure to discover motive by appropriate
clinching evidence may be a weakness in the proof of the prosecution case, but it is not
necessarily fatal as a matter” of law.
Proof of “motive is never an indispensable factor for conviction. Even in the case of
circumstantial evidence, absence of motive which may be one of the strongest links to connect
the chain would not necessarily become fatal provided the other circumstances would complete
the chain and connect the accused with the commission of the offence, leaving no room for
reasonable doubt, even from the proved” circumstances.

Last seen theory (CHAPTER 3):

So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is necessary to take note of two decisions of the
court In State of U.P. vs. Satish6, it was noted as follows:

The “last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between point of time when the
accused and the deceased were seen last live and when the deceased is found dead is so small
that possibility of person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last
seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in
between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and
the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in
6
(2005) 3 SCC 114

7
those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen
together by witnesses PWs. 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence” of PW-2.

In “this case an accused was convicted of murdering eight persons belonging to his real brother's
family. The accused had hired two other persons. The sole eye-witness was the brother-in-law of
one of the deceased who had no reason to depose falsely against the accused persons. His
presence in the village on the day of occurrence was on account of remaining present in
panchayat meeting convened to resolve land dispute. On the day of incident he was sleeping on
roof of house of deceased as it was hot season. After seeing accused persons armed with capons
and hearing firing sound he got frightened. He instead of informing the police ran straight to his
village and informed his own family. The conduct of sole eye-witness was quite natural in order
to life. He stated that it was not accused-brother who was armed with rifles but the weapons were
in hands of other two accused hired by him. The simplicity of testimony of sole eye-witness
reflected naturalness and truthfulness and so can be relied upon. It is all the more so when eye-
witness account is corroborated with material particulars proved recovery and” seizure memos7.

The “last scene theory further comes into play where the time gap between the point of time
when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so
small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. Even in such case the court should look for some” corroboration8.

In “order to convict a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence the circumstances should be
of conclusive nature and must nature and not remain in the realm of suspicion, however grave it
may be. The charge of murder like any other charge of an offence can be established by
inferences but when there extremely little by way of direct evidence; it is due to the accused that
there should be no exaggeration of minor incidents in the case and that each inference should be
verified with scrupulous accuracy. It should be remembered that circumstantial evidence in order
to furnish a basis for conviction requires a very high degree of probability, that is, so sufficiently
high that a prudent man considering all the fact and realising that the life or liberty of the accused
depends upon the decision, feels justified in holding that the accused has committed” the crime.
7
Bachhitar Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3473
8
Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna v State of AP, (2006) 10 SCC 172

8
Where “it was established that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and that
he sold the articles, the gold ring and chain belonging to the deceased some days after the
murder, thus committed the murder for gain, it was held that the prosecution established beyond
all reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty or offence of murder as the circumstances
clearly established the chain so complete that there was no escape from the conclusion that the
crime had been committed by the accused” and none else9.

In Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu10 , “the deceased was seen on 4th April, 2004 in the village
at the temple. His body was taken from the borewell by the fire services personnel after more
than 7 days. There was no positive material on record to show that deceased was last seen
together with the accused and intervening period of 7 days. There was no body in contact with
the deceased. The conviction was held to be not” proper.

CASES WHERE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE (CHAPTER 4)

1. In Kalua v. state of U.P11 , “Kalua was charged with the murder of deceased by shooting
him with the pistol. It was held, that there could be no room for thinking in the
circumstances established in this case, that anyone else other than the accused might have
shot the deceased. He was convicted. The circumstantial evidence proved” was:

1. Few days before the killing of the deceased the accused had held out a threat
against him.

2. A cartridge was found near the Cot of the deceased.

3. A pistol was recovered from his house.

4. The fire-arm expert gave his opinion that the cartridge found near the Cot of the
dead body was fired from the pistol produced by the accused.

9
Gokaraju Venkatanarasa v State of AP, 1993 AIR SCW 3308
10
Appeal (crl.) 631 of 2000

11
AIR 1958 SC 180

9
 In this “case chain of circumstantial, evidence all the circumstances was established by
independent evidence and they formed a complete chain bringing home the guilt to the
accused without giving room to any other” hypothesis.

2. In Awadhi Yadawa v. State of Bihar 12 , The accused could not explain as to how they
happened to carry the dead body. The accused were held guilty. The following conditions
were established:

1. There was a bitter enmity with the accused and the deceased.

2. That the accused were carrying dead body of the deceased.

3. They were also carrying bhalla and pharsa at that time

4. It was also proved that the deceased had injuries caused by the weapons which the

accused were carrying.

It was further held that “We are satisfied that the circumstances mentioned above have
been satisfactorily proved and those circumstances establish beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellants were responsible for the murder of the deceased”.

3. In Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab13, the case was depending on the conclusions drawn
from circumstances, The “Supreme Court Observed that it is well settled that the
cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the
accused to bring the offences home to him beyond any reasonable doubt”.

The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in support of the charge under section
302, I.P.C. were
1. Suspicion of infidelity of the Spelt out from some letters suggesting motive for
murder.
2. Securing parathion poison (rat poison) by accused from a prosecution witness
3. Accused immediately took deceased to civil hospital after the poisoning

12
(1971) 3 SCC 116
13
AIR 1954 SC 621

10
 4. Production of a stick by accused at the time of search by which he was said to
have beaten his wife
5. Accused had produced the bottle of poison which had been concealed in a pit in
his compound.
It was “held on a consideration of the evidence and the circumstances referred did not
prove the case against the accused conclusively and unerringly, and at any rate two
reasonable views were possible. The Sessions Judge having taken one view, in the
circumstances it was not proper for the High Court to take the other view which also may
have been possible for the purpose of reversing the order of acquittal passed by the
session judge”. The conviction and sentence passed by the High Court should be set aside
and the accused acquitted.
On “facts the court found that the defence put forward accused cannot be said to have
been disproved or to be so improbable that his guilt must be taken to have been
established beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts below in taking the contrary view failed
to keep in mind the fundamental rule relating to the proof of guilt based circumstantial
evidence and proceeded on conjectures in a case where stating the circumstances were
more or less equally” balanced.
4. In the Case of Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs. State of M.P 14 it “was a case of conviction
on charge of murder, where the deceased had been brutally cut into pieces and all the cut
pieces had been thrown at different parts of the city where the murder was committed.
Though the headless body and the various limbs were seen and recovered on same day
the decapitated head was seen and recovered only on the subsequent day. The photograph
of the head was taken. As the features of the face could not be deciphered, the Judges of
the High Court reached the conclusion that it was impossible for any person to identify
the deceased photograph and as such, they were reluctant to place reliance on
identification by the mother of the deceased, However, the High Court relying on other
facts of the case concurring with the trial Court came to the conclusion that the deceased
was the person for murder of whom the accused was convicted. The complexion and the
age of the deceased as per post mortem certificate tallied with the evidence as to age and
complexion of the deceased. The Medical Officer had further stated that the decapitated

14
AIR 1989 SC 1890

11
 head was that of the body recovered on the earlier days. The scrapings of the wall of the
kitchen portion of the stated that the decapitated head was that of the body recovered on
the house were proved to have been stained with human blood. The pillow recovered
from the house also was proved to have been stained with human blood. In the number of
letters inclusive of the letter addressed the accused to his father, the accused himself had
unequivocally confessed that the deceased was the person for murder of whom the
Accused was convicted. The prosecution rested its case on number of attending
circumstances for establishing the guilt of the accused. Gross and indecent behavior of
accused towards 'B who was none other than the sister of the deceased was referred to as
motive, It was but natural that the deceased should have taken a strong objection to the
conduct of the accused and this has resulted in the murder. There was evidence of the
landlord of the house to the effect that at the time when the victim was murdered except
the accused and the deceased, there was none in the house. The High Court also correctly
came to the conclusion that the date on the letter addressed by the accused to his father in
which the accused confessed his guilt was written by mistake as contents thereof
supported such” conclusion.
It was held “that there were number of impelling circumstances attending the case
leading to an irresistible and inescapable conclusion that it was the accused and the
accused alone who caused the death of the deceased in a very ghastly manner by cutting
him into pieces and throwing various parts of his body at different parts of the city. The
evaluation of the findings of the High Court did not suffer from any illegality or manifest
error or perversity nor it had overlooked or wrongly discarded any vital piece of evidence
and the findings of the High Court are not liable to be interfered” with.

5. In the case of Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab15, The appellant (the main accused)
along with his three companions was prosecuted and the following circumstances were
found established.
1) Firstly, they hired the taxi of the deceased (taxi driver) for going to certain long
distant place.

15
AIR 1987 SC350

12
 2) Secondly, the interception of taxi at a road bypass near certain town and recovery
of driving licence and other related documents together with a country-made
pistol and the wrist watch of the deceased.
3) Thirdly, statement made by co-accused leading to recovery of dead body
embedded in a canal.
4) Fourthly, the fact that the appellant was absconding until he was intercepted in a
District Court some eight days after the incident.
5) Fifthly, the false plea of the appellant and denial of his arrest.
It was held that these circumstances along with the fact that the appellant hired the taxi
would lead to no other inference than that of guilt of the appellant and they were
inconsistent with his innocence.

6. In the case of Krishna Ghosh v State of West Bengal16

The “accused persons were convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A, 302
read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The appeal was made
to the Supreme Court on the ground that the case rested on the circumstantial evidence and
circumstances did not establish the guilt. The facts were that deceased woman had died of
injuries caused by the physical assault on her whose dead body was found in her
matrimonial home. The death took place within one year and four months of her marriage.
The accused persons were absconding after the incident which was of considerable
importance. The injuries noticed by the witnesses were fit with the evidence of autopsy
surgeon. The plea of alibi set by the appellant could not be established. The report of the
doctor was that the death was due to asphyxia resulting from throttling which was ante
mortem and homicidal in” nature.
The Supreme Court held the appeal without merit and conviction was held to be proper.
Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat observed :
"There is no doubt that the conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but
it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence as far back
as in 1952”.17

16
AIR 2009 SC 2279
17
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v State of Madhya Pradesh, Air 1952 SC 343

13
 7. In the case of Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra18, it “has been held that it is not
necessary in all cases that the commission of crime be proved by ocular evidence by
examining before the Court those persons who have seen the commission of crime. The
principle of factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences
drawn from factum probans, i.e.through evidentiary facts. It is further not necessary that
all the eye witnesses should specifically refer to distinct acts of each member. Even if
there is discrepancy in this regard, the evidence cannot be” rejected.

CASES WHERE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT CONVINCING

8. In prem thaku v state of Punjab 19 , the “facts that the evidence showed that the accused
was present with the deceased on the previous evening and he was then missing from
there next morning cannot prove the offence alleged against the appellant beyond any
shadow of doubt. Further, the mere fact that the theft was the motive for the murder
cannot connect the accused with the crime. it is quite likely that whosoever committed
the murders robbed the victims of the money which they had on their person, but that
cannot necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is the accused who robbed the deceased
of their money. The fact that a fairly large sum was paid to the accused and his co-
workers by way of their wages would be known to others apart from the accused and his”
companions.
9. In the case of Gambhir v State of Maharastra 20,the “accused was tried and convicted for
murder of deceased and her two children. Accused used to visit the house of the deceased
in the absence of her Husband but there was evidence that some other persons also visited
her house. The accused was also found in the house of the deceased on the day of
occurrence. It was alleged that the accused was seen in her company when they left the
house in the night but the version was belied by witnesses. The doctors opined that it was
not possible to give probable time of death. The witness called during punchnama for
number of times, was inimical towards the accused. It was also alleged that recoveries of
number of articles were made on the accused's disclosing them. The motive alleged by
the prosecution was of robbery of cash and ornaments but not a single item was touched

18
AIR 2004 SC 3562
19
AIR 1983 SC 61
20
AIR 1982 SC 1157

14
 by the accused. It was held that the three conditions which were necessary to be satisfied
before circumstantial evidence could be made the basis for conviction had not been
fulfilled. There might be suspicion against the accused but it could not take the place of
evidence. The approach of the High Court in the appraisal of evidence was not at all
satisfactory. The evidence on the record fell short of proving the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable” doubt.
Reversing “the judgment the Supreme Court held that the High Court came to its opinion
when the doctors failed to give opinion about the probable time of death. The court
further stated in the cases of murder by administration of poison the court must carefully
scan the evidence and determine four important circumstances which alone can justify a
conviction”.
1. There is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased
2. That the deceased died of poison said to have been administered
3. That the accused had the poison in his possession
4. That he had opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.
In the instant case newly married bride was found dead. The cause of death was
poisoning due to a strong dose of potassium cyanide. It was held that the circumstantial
evidence did not lead to the only conclusion that the husband committed murder by
administering poison. On the other hand two views were possible one pointing to his guilt
and another that the wife might have committed suicide , consequently the accused was
entitled to benefit to doubt.

10. In the case of State Of Haryana Vs “Ved Prakash21 , the important circumstances
pointed out were that the deceased were going towards the sugarcane field during which
time also the accused was seen going in the same direction with the spade, the extra
judicial confession made to a doctor in the presence of a stranger and the matching of the
crime moulds found near the dead bodies. The fact the accused was going in the direction
of the sugarcane field from where the bodies were recovered is hardly a circumstance
which would ever establish the crime attributed to the accused. Secondly, it sounds
strange that accused could have made an extra-judicial confession to a Doctor that too in

21
AIR 1994 SC 468

15
 presence of another person when both of them were strangers to accused. It is equally
surprising that Doctor kept ready a tape recorder anticipating his confession. It is clear
this is an evidence brought out by influence; may be perhaps when the accused was in
police custody. The medical evidence also did not support the extra judicial confession
when the Doctors and the post-mortem examination could not fix the cause for death. The
prosecution, thus having failed to prove in conclusive manner the presence of the accused
and the deceased in the same area before they met with death the accused are entitled to
be” acquitted.

CONCLUSION (CHAPTER 5)

Conviction can be done only when chain of circumstances established for circumstantial
evidence.
In the chain of circumstantial evidence all the circumstances should be established by
independent evidence and they should form a complete chain bringing home the guilt to the
accused without giving room to any other hypothesis. Conditions to be satisfied are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn must be fully established,
(2) all the facts should be consistent with the hypothesis,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and
(4) the circumstances should, to moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis but the
one proposed to be proved.
(5) In order to convict a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence the circumstances
should be of conclusive nature and must nature and not remain in the realm of suspicion,
however grave it may be.
In this case of Kalua v state of up, chain of circumstantial, evidence all the circumstances
was established by independent evidence and they formed a complete chain bringing
home the guilt to the accused without giving room to any other hypothesis.

In the case of Gambhir v State of Maharastra, the accused was awarded benefit of doubt
since the chain of circumstances was not established. Hence, where chain of
circumstances is established conviction can be done.

16
Conviction cannot be done if circumstantial evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction can be done if circumstantial evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case of Awadhi Yadawa v. State of Bihar22 , The accused could not explain as to
how they happened to carry the dead body. The accused were held guilty and the court
stated that “the circumstances mentioned above have been satisfactorily proved and
those circumstances establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were
responsible for the murder of the deceased”. Hence the accused was held guilty since it
was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Conviction cannot be done if circumstantial evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case of Gambhir v State of Maharastra, “the accused was tried and convicted for
murder of deceased and her two children. It was held that the three conditions which were
necessary to be satisfied before circumstantial evidence could be made the basis for
conviction had not been fulfilled. There might be suspicion against the accused but it
could not take the place of evidence. The approach of the High Court in the appraisal of
evidence was not at all satisfactory. The evidence on the record fell short of proving the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence conviction could not be done
since circumstantial evidence was not beyond reasonable” doubt.

22
(1971) 3 SCC 116

17
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Batuk Lal’s – The Law of Evidence

2. The Constitution of India – M.P. Jain
3. Yale Law Journal.
4. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies
5. Gaur, K. (2016). Textbook on the Indian Evidence Act. Universal Law
Publications.
6. Lal, B. (2018). The Indian Evidence Act,1872. Central Law Agency.
7. SCC. (2020, MARCH 1). SCC ONLINE. Retrieved from
https://www.scconline.com/
8. Singh, A. (2016). Principles of the Law of Evidence: A study of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Central Law Publications.
9. Online Reference-
A. SCC ONLINE
B. MANUPATRA
C. J STOR
D. LEXISNEXIS

18