Chain of evidence must be complete in a case based on circumstantial evidence

Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.  896 of 2011, Decided on May 29, 2013

In this Case appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case was based upon the circumstantial evidence, as there existed no eye-witness to the occurrence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred following case laws:

R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, AIR 2013 SC 651, wherein it was held, “the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and cannot derive any strength from the weaknesses in the defence put up by the accused. However, a false defence may be brought to notice, only to lend assurance to the Court as regards the various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which are in themselves complete. The circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be fully established. The same must be of a conclusive nature, and must exclude all possible hypothesis, except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and the chain of evidence must be complete, so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and must further show, that in all probability, the said offence must have been committed by the accused.”

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622;

Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200.

To see full text follow the link:

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40444