AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3206 ::2002 AIR SCW 3710 ::2002 CriAppR(SC) 542 ::(2003) 2 MadLW(Cri) 639 ::(2002) 3 CurCriR 337 ::(2002) 3 AllCriR 2994 ::2003 CriLR(SC&MP) 54 ::2002 SCC(Cri) 1718 ::(2002) 6 Scale 289 ::2003 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 54 ::2003 (1) AndhLT(Cri) 1 SC ::2002 (4) AllCriLR 638 ::2003 CalCriLR 147 ::2002 (7) SCC 317 ::(2003) 2 EastCriC 210 ::(2002) 2 Jab LJ 373 ::(2002) 4 SCJ 186 ::2003 (1) UC 9 ::2002 (4) Crimes 220 ::2002 (5) SLT 179 ::(2002) 6 Supreme 228 ::(2003) 1 AllIndCas 113 (SC) ::2003 (1) AllIndCas 113 ::2003 (46) AllCriC 16 ::(2003) SC Cr R 333 ::2003 (1) MPHT 1 ::2002 (9) SRJ 80 ::(2002) 6 JT 593 (SC) ::2002 (6) JT 593

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Madhya Pradesh)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Doraiswamy Raju, Shivaraj V. Patil , JJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— Circumstantial evidence - Conviction on basis of - Principles which should guide and weigh with Court - Reiterated. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh. AIR 1952 SC 343, Foll.Sudama Panday v. State of Bihar, 2001 AIR SCW 5012 : AIR 2002 SC 293 : 2002 Cri LJ 582 : 2002 AIR - Jhar HCR 45 and Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 AIR SCW 4209, Relied on. (Para 6) (B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3, S.100— Criminal case - Proof - Suspicion however strong - Not substitute for legal proof - Graver the charge greater has to be the standard of proof - Courts to keep in mind that there lies long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' Realities or Truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be is no effect....