35 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt rt inferences drawn from "factum probans" i.e. evidentiary facts. To C ou put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence on various other facts in issue that taken together forms a chain of circumstances from which the existence of a principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. On the law relating to circumstantial evidence, it has ig h 30. been consistently laid down by the Apex Court that where a case H rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and ba y circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. A legal trend would further show that for a conviction in murder case on circumstantial B om evidence, following conditions must be fulfilled : i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:36:28 :::