If there is no eye witness of the incident, then the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.
The case of Queen-Empress Vs. Hosh Nak : 1941 All LJ 416 which is a locus classicus on the issue of circumstantial evidence.
In the case of Hosh Nak (supra), it has been held that to prove an offence by circumstantial evidence four things are essential. They are:
(1) : That the circumstance from which the conclusion is drawn be fully established.
(2) : That all the facts should be consistent with the hypothesis.
(3) : That the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) : That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.
In the case of Hanumant, son of Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1952 SC 343 it has been held by the SC:
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.
In the case of Khasbaba Maruti Sholke Vs. The State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 449 it was held by the Apex Court as under:
In order to base the conviction of an accused on circumstantial evidence the court must be certain that the circumstantial evidence is of such a character as is consistent only with the guilt of the accused. If, however, the circumstantial evidence admits of any other rational explanation, in such an event an element of doubt would creep in and the accused must necessarily have the benefit thereof.
No comments:
Post a Comment