मुद्दा 2 क्या गाडी की गद्दी फटी मिलना परिस्तिथिजन्य साक्ष्य गिरफ्तारी के लिए पर्याप्त है ?

1. परिस्थितिजन्य साक्ष्य की श्रंख

ृ ला परू ी तरह से स्थापित है

It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the court
must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly
and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of
the accused.1 When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other
circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubts.2 In the absence of clear and cogent evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, the proof
of motive however adequate cannot by itself sustain a criminal charge. 3 When attempting to convict
on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly satisfied of the following five things 4:

a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances must be or should and not may be established;

b) 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 explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

c) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

d) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved;

e) 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.

These five golden principles constitute the „Panch Sheel‟ of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence. In drawing the inference, the true rule of law, which is to be applied, is the
rule, which requires that guilt be not to be inferred unless that is the only inference, which follows
from the circumstances of the case, and no other innocuous inference can be drawn

Supreme Court of India in Bakhshish Singh v State of Punjab 5 , “in a case resting on circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again those 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.”

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, the evidence produced by the respondent-

1
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
2
Janar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
3
Padam Pradhan v State, 1982 Cri.LJ. 534
4
Sharad Bircichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
5
AIR 1971 SC 2016:1971 CriLJ 1452:(1971) 3 SCC 182
prosecution should be of such nature that it makes the conviction of the accused sustainable. 6 In
Madhu v. State of Karnataka7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence
can be the sole basis of conviction.
In the instant case:

A. Circumstances are fully established

The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances must be or should and not may be established. It is contended that there is a well-
established chain of circumstantial evidence proved by the respondent-prosecution.

B. Circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of only the accused.
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 explained on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty. In cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, in order to justify the
inference of guilt, all the incriminating facts and circumstances must be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and incapable of explanation upon
any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. 8 The facts taken as a whole lead to only
one inference, i.e, the accused are guilty.

C. Circumstances are of a conclusive nature

The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 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. 9 In
the given case, the circumstances pointed out by the Respondent-prosecution are conclusive in
nature.

D. Other hypotheses not reasonably possible

Any other hypothesis except the one to be proved, provided by the Appellants, that is imaginary
and trivial, cannot be the basis of an acquittal. The effort of the criminal court should not be to
prowl for imaginative doubts.10 The circumstances must be complete and conclusive to be read
as an integrated whole and not separately and must indicate guilt of the accused with
certainty.11

E. Chain of circumstances is complete

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.

6
State of Uttar Pradesh v Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114:AIR 2005 SC 1000
7
AIR 2014 SC 394
8
Hukam v State, AIR 1977 SC 1063
9
C. Chenga Reddy v State of A.P, (1996) 10 SCC 193
10
State of Rajasthan v. Tej Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507
11
Kartik Sahu v State of Orissa, 1994 Cri.L.J. 102 (Ori)
2. हे मंत का रामपाल को उसका पारिवारिक जीवन नष्ट करने की धमकी दे ना उसका इरादा

दर्शाता है

In the case of V.M. Sanghi v. Rammorath Gourishankar Tiwari12 the court

opined that a threat to affect another’s life may amount to criminal

intimidation but not a mere threat. The threat should be given with the

intent to cause alarm to the person threatened. The intention must be to

cause alarm to the victim, whether the victim is alarmed or not is of no

consequence.13

In the case it is quite clear that the defendant did not gave the threat to the prosecution in the heat
of the moment. The defendant had sufficient time to cool down and hence the act of Hemant Kumar
is not merely a threat but criminal intimidation.

In the case of Chandami v Bhahataran 14 the court laid down the threat must be communicated or
uttered with the intention of its being communicated to the person threatened for the purpose of
influencing his mind.

Therefore, it is contended that the Respondents is guilty of criminal intimidation under § 506 of IPC.

12
V.M. Sanghi v. Rammorath Gourishankar Tiwari (1988) 3 Crimes 318 (Bom).
13
Amulya Kumar Behera v. Nabhagana Behera (1955) Cr LJ 3559
14
Chandami v Bhahataran (1964) CR LJ 85