34 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt 28. C ou This witness is not cross­examined by the Accused. rt and accordingly Aniket climbed the ladder and went to his house. Thus from the evidence of PW­25 Dr. Mugadalimath and PW­30 Dr. Sachin Gade, postmortem report (Exhibit 32), final cause of death certificate (Exhibit 112), spot Panchanama (Exhibit ig h 29), seizure Panchanama (Exhibit 30), the manner of incident and circumstances brought on record as discussed above an H irresistible conclusion must follow that death of victim girl was homicidal in nature. Now in order to ascertain whether Accused No.1 is ba y 29. responsible for rape on victim girl and causing her death, we have to evaluate the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There is no om direct evidence in the matter. Prosecution case exclusively rests on the circumstantial evidence. It may be stated that for a crime B to be proved, it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances, be proved by direct or ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or "factum probandum" may be proved indirectly by means of certain ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:36:28 :::