2002 AIR SCW 3655 ::(2003) 2 MadLW(Cri) 858 ::2003 (3) JKJ 88 ::(2002) 3 CurCriR 303 ::(2002) 3 CurCriR 291 ::(2002) 2 UC 714 ::2003 SCC(Cri) 201 ::2002 SCC (Cri) 1734 ::2002 (8) SCC 45 ::2002 (7) SCC 334 ::(2002) 6 Scale 238 ::(2002) 6 Scale 266 ::2002 (2) AndhLT(Cri) 268 SC ::(2003) 1 AndhLT(Cri) 37 ::(2002) 2 ALD(CRL) 610 ::(2002) 6 JT 486 (SC) ::(2003) 1 CurLJ(CCR) 129 ::(2002) 4 SCJ 101

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Jammu and Kashmir)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat , JJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— Circumstantial evidence - Can be sole basis for conviction - Conditions to be satisfied, stated. 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 also. 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 the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but the conditions precedent 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....