2008 (11) SCR184, 2008(11) SCC113, 2008 (10) SCALE 336, 2008 (8) JT169, JT2008 (8) SC 136, 2009-1-LW(Crl)31

The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. [Para 10] [195-G, 196-A,B,C] 1.2. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. [Para 11] [196-C,D] 1.3. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. [Para 11] [196-E] 1.4 In the present case, it is obvious that Appellant wanted to camouflage the serious crime of rape committed by him over the 5 years old girl. So in a planned manner, after committing rape, he mercilessly inserted stem/stick deep inside the fragile vagina of the girl to the extent of 33 cms. to cause her death, with a view to masquerade the crime as an accident. It was his cruel innovation that he inserted a stick deep into her vagina causing death of the victim. It was just by providence that due to timely reach of the witnesses (PWs 2, 3 & others) (who were frantically searching the girl) he could be caught in naked condition while inserting stick into the vagina of the victim. He was near the lifeless body of the victim.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Indian Penal Code, 1908