Circumstantial Evidence is of considerable help in determining the guilt

Circumstantial evidence is sometimes of very great importance. Indeed in some heinous crimes it is the only evidence available. It provides links in a chain of facts which go to establish the guilt of the accused.

Where there is no direct evidence and the proof is made to rest on circumstantial evidence, the principles which should be kept in view in judging the guilt are as follows:

(1) Each fact and circumstance on which the prosecution relies in support of its case must be such as to lead to a reasonable inference about some aspect of the guilt of the accused.

(2) Every such fact or circumstance on which the prosecution relies must be clearly proved beyond doubt.

(3) The chain of proved facts and circumstances must be complete and unbroken. No link in it must be missing.

(4) The proved facts and circumstances must be of such nature as to point, in their total effect, irresistibly and unmistakably to the only conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence.

The Chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused person.

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 short, the incriminating facts established must be incapable of explanation upon any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Otherwise the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P., 1952 SC 343.