Facts:

Hetal Parekh, an 18-year-old female student, was raped and murdered in apartment number 3-
A, on the third floor of “Anand Apartments”
The appellant was charged and tried for rape and murder and offense under Section 380 IPC,
for theft of wrist watch from the said apartment
The appellant, Dhananjoy, was one of the security guards assigned by M/s to guard the
Anand Apartment building
The Investigation and Security Office is headed by Mr
Shyam Karmakar On 2 March 1990, Hetal (deceased) complained to her mother Yashmoti
Parekh that the appellant had teased her on the way to school and offered to accompany her
to the cinema that day to watch movie
Yashmoti told her husband Nagardas Parekh about the appellant's behavior towards their
daughter, who in turn complained to Shyam Karmakar and asked him to replace the appellant
At the instance of Shyam Karmakar, who approached Nagardas at his apartment in this
regard, he also filed a complaint and the appellant was transferred and orders were made to
transfer him to 'Paras Apartments ' was issued by Shyam
Bijoy Thapa, a security guard at Paras Apartments, was posted to his post at Anand
Apartments
The transfer took effect from March 5, 1990
Following their usual routine, Nagardas Parekh and his son Bhawesh Parekh, father and
brother of the deceased, left for work and college in the morning March 5, 1990
Bhawesh returned to the apartment around 11:30 am
and after eating, he went to his father's workplace as usual
The deceased returned to his apartment after taking the test at around 1 pm
Yashmoti, mother of the deceased used to visit Laxmi Narayan Mandir from 5 pm to 5:30
pm every day
As usual, on the day of the incident, she also left the Temple at around 5:20 pm
The deceased Hetal was alone in the apartment at that time
Immediately after Yashmoti, the mother of the deceased, left for the Temple, the appellant
met Dasarath Murmu, another security guard who was then on duty in the building and told
him that he was going to the apartment
number 3-A to contact his office by Telephone
The appellant used the elevator to reach the said apartment and commit the crime
Around 6:05 pm
Yashmoti returned from the Temple
When she arrived at her apartment, she rang the bell many times but there was no answer and
no one opened the door
She set off an alarm that attracted some neighbors
They also rang the bell and knocked on the door but there was no response
Finally, the door lock was broken by the neighbors, their servants, and the elevator, and
when she entered the apartment with some neighbors, she found her bedroom door open
Yashmoti found Hetal lying on the ground, unconscious
The doctor after performing an autopsy declared her dead
His father then informed Bhawanipore police station about the phone
On receiving the phone message, Sub-Inspector Gurupada Som, the duty officer, rushed to
the scene of the incident along with other police officers and registered an FIR as per the
statement of Yashmoti Parekh, the mother of the accused
hidden, and opened an investigation.
The Sessions Judge in this case, based on circumstantial evidence, found the accused guilty
and therefore sentenced him to death
Dhananjoy Chatterjee's appeal to prove his innocence was also rejected by the Calcutta High
Court and then the Supreme Court

ISSUE:

1. Whether The Appellant Was The Assailant Who Had Raped And Murdered The
Defenseless Young Girl?
2. Whether The Appellant Had A Motive To Commit The Alleged Crime?
3. Whether The Case Falls Under The Rarest Of The Rare Cases?

Rules:
Dhananjoy Chatterjee was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 376,
302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code
Reference made under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

APPLICATION:
According to Indian Evidence Act, 1872, circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect
evidence
It relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sough to be proved it is the
evidence that is drawn not from direct observation of the fact at issue but from events or
circumstances surround it is a proof of a fact which tends to prove whether something is true
or not
It is usually a theory supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence
This kind of evidence is important because nearly all the criminal are careful not to generate
direct evidence and they try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent
Therefore to prove mens rea, the prosecution resorts to circumstantial evidence
The well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each incriminating fact must
be clearly established by reliable evidence and that the facts proved must arise from a chain
of events from which draw the only irresistible conclusion as to the defendant's guilt and that
no other hypothesis against guilt is possible

CONCLUSION:
The whole discussion essentially brings us back to the fundamental question of
whether Circumstantial evidence is a sole base of conviction or not

Undeniable the conclusion would be affirmative in true spirit Undoubtedly;

circumstantial evidence plays a pivotal role in criminal case Circumstantial evidence”
which helped prosecution nail in various landmark cases mentioned above was
heavily based on circumstantial evidence A popular misconception is that
circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence This is only
partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful
criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges
are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence In practice,
circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence because it is more
difficult to conceal or fabricate Where the case does not rely solely or substantially on
circumstantial evidence, the revised circumstantial evidence guidance may be
appropriate when summarizing an element of the offense that relies solely or
substantially on the evidence indirect evidence