77 that both of them were witnesses to the seizure memo (Ex. P75). The left shoe was seized (Ex. P21) pursuant to disclosure made by Rahul to the IO. 147. In furtherance of Ex. P115 letter dated 13.07.2011 sent by the IO to the State Forensic Laboratory, Examination Report of shoe prints dated 13.09.2011 was prepared. This report stated that, the exhibits were received by the Ballistics Branch on 02.08.2011 in sealed condition. For comparative examination, sample prints of soles of shoes of Ex. F2, F6, and G4 and sandals of Ex. H3 were made (photographs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14). The shoeprints found were merely mentioned together – it is unclear as to which photograph (#10, 11, etc.) is the sample of which shoe (F2, F5, etc.). 148. This court is of the opinion that much weight cannot be attached to the footprint evidence in this case. The report explicitly notes that shoeprints are incomplete and unclear, and that specific and clear opinion could not be given. Yet, the expert proceeded to give his opinion about the matching of the prints. In State of Bihar v Kapil Singh 55 this Court had held that evidence of an expert relating to presence of a footprint, at the best is of a weak nature. This view was also shared by Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan56 and Balbir Singh v State of Punjab57. The prosecution, in the opinion of this court, has not proved this circumstance. Principles applicable to appreciation of evidence in cases involving circumstantial evidence 149. In one of its earlier decisions this court had in Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh58 indicated that the correct approach of courts trying criminal cases involving circumstantial evidence should be that the circumstances alleged, be fully established; all the facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; circumstances should be 55 1968 (3) SCR 310 56 (1997) 10 SCC 44 57 1996 (6) SCALE 72 58 AIR 1953 SC 343