Background
The case Bodh Raj & Ors v. State of Jammu & Kashmir deals with the aspects of the circumstantial evidence. In the words of Stephen Leacock, circumstantial evidence is defined as my evidence for this assertion is indirect; it's what we call as the circumstantial evidence the same the people hang for. Circumstantial evidence can be best defined as when all the unrelated facts are considered together then certain inference can be drawn from such facts which are known as the circumstantial evidence.

And the circumstantial evidence is not used as original evidence but it would be helpful in guiding further investigation. Circumstantial evidence could be helpful in both criminal and civil cases, in criminal cases it would be helpful in evaluating whether the accused is guilty or innocent and in the case of civil cases it would be helpful in establishing or denying the liability of the parties.

Outline
In the present case the issue was whether the discovery of the weapons that are used in the assault was found by the information provided the accused, which is in the custody, can be treated as evidence to prove that he is guilty of the offence. And in this case the court has decided that the statement given by the accused which are helpful in finding more evidences and become instrumental in proving the guilt of the accused can be admitted.

According to section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it has been stated that this section has been enacted as a proviso for sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as these sections state that the statement made by the accused in the police custody can be considered as a confession and cannot be admitted as evidence. So, the objective of section 27 of the IEA, 1872 was to admit the evidence given by the accused in the police custody if that evidence leads to the discovery of the new facts in the case and that evidence can be admissible in the court.

Critical Review Of The Case
In this case, the appellant Bodh raj was acquitted at the trial court but he was convicted at the high court. And the other accused named Rohit Kumar and Kewal Krishan were acquitted by the trial court and later the decision of the trial court was upheld by the high court. And the other accused named Kishore Kumar was primarily acquitted by the trial court and later he died during the pendency of the appeal. And the facts of the case were that the deceased Swaran Singh is running a finance company and in this company two of the accused named Ashok Kumar and Ravinder Kumar have taken the loan and later on, the accused suggested the deceased enter into a financial arrangement.

To deposit the money in the bank and all the three parties went to look at a site for the purpose of the flour mill later on some people came to the site and attacked the deceased and the other two accused remained as silent spectators and in this course Swaran Singh was dead and Ashok Kumar with help of his wife cheque book and issued a cheque in the bank account and in the instance of the other accused Ravinder Kumar the license of his revolver has been seized and the revolver of the deceased has also been recovered in the instance of Ravinder Kumar and two of them had made a statement to the prosecution witness that they killed the party because he was demanding money from them.

And from these facts, it has been inferred that since the land was too brought by both accused, Ravinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar, they both hired the assailants to kill Swaran Singh. And the accused Rajesh Kumar and Subash Kumar have also suffered injuries while the deceased was trying to save his life in that attack by the assailants. And in the process of recovering weapons, the other accused in this case has been identified by the prosecution witnesses. The accused Bodh Raj was identified by the prosecution witness.

Stand Of Prosecution
The prosecution has stated that there existed a conspiracy to kill Swaran Singh by inferring certain facts such as nobody except the accused, Ravinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar know the place of land and while they were going to the site they used a car which was not on their name. And however, the advocate general who appeared before the trial court has stated that there was no direct evidence presented to state that there was a conspiracy to kill Swaran Singh.

And the learned counsel of the prosecution has also stated that the accused Ashok Kumar and Ravinder Kumar are very influential persons in the society and they can manipulate the evidence that is present and the witnesses were afraid of them and he suggested examining the facts with the test of pragmatic approach, which means examining the evidence that are present in the practical ways rather than theoretical way of approach.

Stand Of Defence
The defense counsel has stated that there was no conspiracy existed in killing of Swaran Singh. And the prosecution witness, Kapur Chand has stated before the police that the examination of conspiracy was not done. And the investigating officer in this case has stated that there is no direct evidence of the conspiracy has existed and there is proof that has been present to show that accused were linked to this crime.

Scrutiny Of The Case By The Appeal Court
In this case it has not been disclosed by both the trial court and the high court how the police got to know about the place where the deceased was found dead. And it is stated by witnesses that the police got to know about the place through a telephone call, but the FIR is registered on the basis of reliable sources they got to know about the place. And on the basis of the circumstantial evidence the four of the accused were acquitted by the trial court and the trial court has adopted the right approach while examining the circumstantial evidence.

Examination Of Precedents
Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is stated that in order to provide the evidence which leads to the discovery of the new facts will be admissible in the court of law and such information must come from the person who is in the police custody. And the admissible information is the information that is derived from the statement of the accused but no the opinion of the police officer.

In the case of Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that the restrictions that were imposed by sections 25 and 26 can be lifted if the statement given by the accused leads to the discovery of the new facts in the case. And that information given by the accused in the police custody should be recorded and proved for the benefit of both prosecution and accused in case of the non-recording of the information then the original information must be submitted as evidence and this can defined as the doctrine of confirmation by successive events.

And this doctrine is based on the principle that any information provided by the person in police custody is genuine, but that information is derived from the confessional statement and it leads to the discovery of the facts. The recovery of an object cannot leads to the discovery of the facts because mere finding an object cannot leads to know the real facts of the facts as anticipated in section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In the case of C. Chenga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that in the cases where the judgment is based on the circumstantial evidence and based on certain circumstances from which the guilt of the accused is derived should be fully proved and it should be conclusive in nature.

And in the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, it was held that if the cases are based upon the circumstantial evidences then certain tests are to be followed they are:

• The circumstances from which the facts derived and inferences drawn should be firmly established.
• The circumstances should in such a manner that should point the guilt towards the accused but not show the innocence.
• While considering all the circumstances it should form a chain of evidence and should prove that the accused was guilty of the offence.
• And the final test is that the circumstantial evidences should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and it should be inconsistent with his innocence.

Examination Of Evidence
In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, it was held that while examining the evidences in a case a great care must be taken in order to interpret the facts and there are two possibilities of evidences they are one is favor of the accused and that must be considered and the other one circumstances will be helpful in forming the facts so that it will be of such a nature that it solely serves to prove the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis. Furthermore, the evidence should be conclusive and should not allow for any further inferences.

Obiter Dictum
In the present case the court has enumerated some important points that have to be fulfilled if the conviction of the accused is based on the circumstantial evidence they are as follows:

• The circumstances from which facts are derived must be final, and there should be no further scope for any other explanations.
• Circumstances from which the guilt is proved should be required to be rigid in nature.
• The circumstances underpinning the guilt should be rigid in nature.
• The circumstances underpinning the guilt should be rigid in nature.
• The circumstances underpinning the guilt should be rigid in nature.

While inferring the facts from the circumstances, only the relevant things must be considered; the other entire hypothesis should not be taken into account.
And the circumstances should be in such a manner it shows interconnectedness between the accused and the criminal offence. And the circumstances should be such that they demonstrate the accused's connection to the criminal offense.

And the circumstances should be such that they demonstrate the accused's connection to the criminal offense. And the circumstances should be such that they demonstrate the accused's connection to the criminal offense. And the circumstances should be such that they demonstrate the accused's connection to the criminal offence.

Ratio Decidendi
In this case, the court observed that establishing the facts that the deceased was last seen with the accused would be difficult, and in cases where there is a large number of people who may be in between the accused and the deceased, it may be even more difficult. And in the absence of any further pieces of evidence, the court shall conclude that the deceased was last seen with the accused, and in these types of cases, it would be difficult to prove the conviction of the accused as there would be many other facts that are inconsistent with the circumstances.

Judgement
The court has held that for admission of a certain piece of evidence the circumstances can be basis for the conviction of the accused, and proving that circumstances are in consistent with the facts lies upon the prosecution and he has to prove that chain is complete and has to show that there is no infirmity as stated in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

And there is no requirements of proofs are needed if the link between the accused and the offence has been established. The last seen doctrine can be understood as the person with whom the accused was last seen and he will be responsible for the death of that person.

However, the circumstances leading to the last seen doctrine not always be concluded that the accused is guilty of the offence. And it is imperative to look up to other circumstances in which it can be shown that there are other things had been taken place. There should be proximity of time between the death of a person and the accused because it clears the ambiguity that if there are any other persons with the deceased.

And the court held that the extent of the information provided by the circumstances that can be admissible in the case should depend on the nature of the facts and the court has observed that the statement provided by the accused in the police custody regarding the place he has concealed the articles cannot be regarded as information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

And the appeal filed by the state in respect of whom both the trial court and the high court have acquitted has been seen as immaterial. And both the courts have not found any reasons to find them guilty of the crime and hence the appeal filed by the state has been dismissed.

Conclusion
In these modern times, there has been the advancement of knowledge in obtaining circumstantial evidence to assist the prosecution and prove the accused is guilty of the crime. And we know that eye witness of a criminal offence can be the significant evidence and it is considered in most the cases, but in certain cases, it can be subjected to scrutiny because of the human errors or any malice intended on the party. Whereas the case of circumstantial evidence tests the direct evidence by the usage of linking of the facts and proving the guilt of the accused. Circumstantial can be best said as evidence that is supported by corroboration.