R. Basant, J.

i) In a criminal case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, is the prosecution bound to prove the circumstances beyond doubt?

ii) Is it sufficient that the circumstances are proved by the prosecution on the test of balance of probabilities as in a civil case?

iii) Is the burden on the prosecution in a criminal case to prove guilt beyond doubt confined only to proof of inferential facts and not to primary or basic facts?

iv) Can the insistence on proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case be justified by the definition of the expression "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act? Is such insistence alien to such definition and justified (or imported into Indian Criminal Law) only by binding precedents of superior courts?

v) Does not the definition of the expression "proved" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act (the Act hereinafter) apply to all facts -facts in issue and relevant facts, whether sought to be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence?

vi) Do the observations of the Constitution Bench in para. 18 of M.G. Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 negate or obliterate altogether the distinction between proof of circum