In case of circumstantial evidence, court has to examine the entire evidence in its entirety and ensure that the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused.
Supreme Court in the instant matter held as dangerous to convict the accused alleged of committing murder by relying on “last seen theory” where time gap between the time when accused and victim were last seen together and commission of offence is long.
The instant case of the prosecution was entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. It was held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with his evidence.
It was accordingly held as safer to look for corroboration from other circumstances and evidence adduced by the prosecution. In case of circumstantial evidence, court has to examine the entire evidence in its entirety and ensure that the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused. For establishing the guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly established and the chain of circumstances must be completed from the facts.
Nizam & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan
Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2007