Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
12. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR (1990) SC 79, it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: "(I) 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 none MANJUNA THCHENNABASAPAMADALLll'. STATEOFKARNATAKA[PASA YAT,J.] 801 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.
13. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) Crl.LJ 1104, it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence i and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and C the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
14. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (I) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal D inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected" with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify E the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".
15. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on F circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.
16. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1952) SC 343, wherein it was 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 be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with7the H (2007] 2 S. C.R. 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."
17. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622. Therein, while dealing C with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They a;e: (I) 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 the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be hplainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a 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.
18. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram, (2003] 8 sec 180 and Stale of HG/yana V. Jagbir Singh, (2003] 1 I sec 261.
19. In the instant case, the only circumstance which was highlighted by the trial. Court and the High Court was that there was unnatural death and H additionally the so called dying declaration purported to have been recorded MANJUNATHCHENNABASAPAMADALLI v. STATEOFKARNATAKA[PASA YAT,J.] 803 by the then Tehsildar (PW-16). The mere fact that the deceased had died an A unnatural death cannot by itself be a circumstance against the accused particularly when Section 498-A has been held to be inapplicable. Additionally, the conclusion that there was dying declaration is also not factually correct. The trial Court itself has referred to the evidence of PW-16 who categorically stated that though he was requested to record the dying declaration the same B could not be recorded as the doctor was of the opinion that the deceased was not in a fit condition to give her statement. Thereafter, no statement was recorded. In fact he was called to attend the inquest.
20. Above being the position the conviction as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court is indefensible and is set aside.
21. The appeal is allowed. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.