Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was sprinkled with kerosene. The evidence clearly established that there was no homicidal death and it was due to short circuit of electricity.
8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the C innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AlR 1983 SC 446); State of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); o Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal E fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring . F the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus: "In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK v. STA lE OF MAHARASHTRA 951 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [DR ARIJIT PASA YAT, J.] circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis A of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence …. ".
10. 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 8 circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently anq 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 0 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 else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation E 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.
11. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, ( 1992 F Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence 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 G established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following H rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal 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, B . 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 the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable c . 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".
13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch- D stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by · the this Court as far back as in 1952.
14. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was E 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 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." RIYOJODDIN RAFIYODDIN SHAIK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 953 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
15. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sha rad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (Al R 1984 SC 1622). Therein, while dealing 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 are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is c 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 explainable 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.
16. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir G Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261), Kusuma Ankama Rao v. State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on 7.7.2008) and Manivel and Ors. v. State of Tami Nadu (Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2001 disposed of on 8.8.2008).
17. The doctor (PW-8) clearly stated that the dead body A was totally burnt and was smelling of kerosene and the cause of death was due to burns and shock. It was also opined that the injuries found on the dead body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and by pouring kerosene the injury as mentioned in Column No.17 of P.M. B Notes Exh.78 would be caused. The circumstances highlighted by the prosecution as analysed in detail by the trial and High Court clearly established the guilt of the accused. That being so, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. c D.G. Appeal dismissed.