SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 Monday, October 24, 2022 Printed For: Navami Krishnamurthy, Jindal Global University SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42. It is not necessary for us to discuss the evidence of the PW-8 Dr. S.P. Singh. Dr. Singh had performed the post mortems of the deceased Tulsi and Sangeeta. 43. The prosecution has examined the PW-9, Dr. Ankit Kumar Singh. According to the PW-9, the accused appellant was brought at the C.H.C. Dhaurhara on 22.01.2010 at 10 : 30 in the morning for medical examination. He has deposed that on 22.01.2010 he was in-charge Medical Officer at the C.H.C. Dhaurhara. He has deposed that the accused appellant Ramanand was brought at the C.H.C. Dhaurhara by Constable Brij Mohan Singh of Police Station Dhaurhara along with a police yadi. During the medical examination of the accused appellant, he noticed the following injuries on the body of the accused appellant: “1. Lacerated wound 2 cm × 0.5 cm on left side of head, 10 cm above left ear. 2. Lacerated wound 5 cm × 0.5 cm on middle of the head; 2 cm away from Injury 1. 3. Lacerated wound 4.5 cm × 0.5 cm on middle of the head; 1 cm away from Injury No. 2. 4. Superficial burn injury on left side of neck in length 8 cm × 6 cm. 5. Superficial burn injury on right side of neck in length 10 cm × 7 cm.” 44. Dr. Singh has further deposed that all the injuries were simple in nature and fresh. During the medical examination, the clothes of the accused appellant were smelling of kerosene oil. In the cross examination of Dr. Singh, he has deposed that the injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 resply noted during the medical examination of the accused appellant could have been caused with the butt of a gun. He has deposed that the injury Nos. 4 and 5 resply could have been suffered by the accused appellant while trying to rescue. He has deposed that at the time of medical examination of the accused appellant, there was no fresh bleeding from the wounds. At the time of cleaning the wounds with cotton, the blood started to ooze. He has deposed that the injuries could not have been 12 hours old. PRINCIPLES OF LAW RELATING TO APPRECIATION OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 45. In ‘A Treatise on Judicial Evidence’, Jeremy Bentham, an English Philosopher included a whole chapter upon what lies next when the direct evidence does not lead to any special inference. It is called Circumstantial Evidence. According to him, in every case, of circumstantial evidence, there are always at least two facts to be considered: a) The Factum probandum, or say, the principal fact (the fact the existence of which is supposed or proposed to be proved; & b) The Factum probans or the evidentiary fact (the fact from the existence of which that of the factum probandumis inferred). 46. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: 1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; 3. The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the