Govinda Menon, J.-The adequacy or otherwise of the circumstantial evidence against the accused will have to determine his guilt or innocence and for that purpose it is necessary to outline breifly the evidence against him. Shortly put, and if we accept the prosecution evidence in its entirety, the evidence comes to this: Firstly that the deceased and the appellant were on inimical terms sometime prior to the date on which the murder took place. Secondly that the accused had threatened the deceased that he would cut him even as the deceased had cut and killed his goat. Thirdly on the date of murder, a few hours prior to its taking place, there is evidence that the deceased was seen driving his goats in a particular direction. The accused also was doing the same thing so far as his own goats were concerned, i.e., both the deceased and the accused were seen either in each other’s company or in close proximity to each other some hours before the murder took place. The further piece of circumstantial evidence is that sometime after the alleged murder, the accused was seen with a blood-stained chopper going in a direction opposite to the place of murder but coming from the place of murde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document