JUDGMENT : [Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J]

1) Criminal proceedings/trials, in which a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the possibility of the conviction being partly based on surmises or conjecture or even strong suspicion cannot be ruled out and the possibility of the surmises or conjecture taking the place and taking over legal evidence and proof is a lurking possibility. It is, therefore apt, to be reminded by, cautioned and guided by the following observation, in R. v. Hodge [R. v. Hodge, (1838) 2 Lew 227 : 168 ER 1136] that:-

“The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete.”

2) The present Appeal, deals with a conviction, based on circumstantial evidence which is sought to be challenged by the Appellant i.e Original Accused No.2. The Appellant has