Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) This Jail Appeal is preferred against judgment of conviction u/s 302 IPC and order of sentence, both dated 27.11.2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2008 by the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-.
(2.) At the outset it needs to be recorded that the prosecution case rests solely on the circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. It is well settled that a conviction can be based solely on the circumstantial evidence, but all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of circumstances. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., 1989 Supp2 SCC 706, the Supreme Court has laid down the tests, which the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence must satisfy; "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and non else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
(3.) In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., 1952 AIR(SC) 343, the Supreme Court has observed thus;- " It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, 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.";