The Supreme court today reiterated the principle laid down for circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116

BHIM SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2146 OF 2009

Judgment Dated : 11/02/2015

Brief Facts of the Case :

Appellant got married to his wife in the year 1997 - His wife met with an unnatural death in her in-laws house - 90% burnt injury - cause of death was not ascertained by the medical officers.

CATCHPHRASE :

Principles for Circumstancial Evidence:

(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely “may be” fully 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 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.