Sangeeta Vs. Suresh Kumar

.....singhvi, jj] circumstantial evidence -condition precedent held, (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. the circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so compete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. there is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the supreme court as far back as in hanumant govind nargundkar & anr v state of madhya pradesh, air 1952 sc 343. section 3: [arijit pasayat & g.s. singhvi, jj] circumstantial evidence held, 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. 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. where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt - we are happy at the outcome of our efforts...........act in the court of learned civil judge (senior division) at baroda along with an application for interim maintenance. the petitioner-wife also filed a criminal complaint against the respondent-husband and his family members for offences under sections 498a, 406 and 114 of the indian penal code in the court of judicial magistrate first class (municipal) court, baroda in december, 1998.2. after notice was issued in this petition filed by the petitioner-wife for transfer of h.m.a. no. 1093/98 and counter was filed, we took note of paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the respondent-husband was willing to withdraw the divorce petition, in case the petitioner-wife was ready and willing to settle with him and restore marital life. we saw a ray of hope in bringing reconciliation between the parties and suggested to them to try and settle the disputes and bury their differences and start afresh their matrimonial life keeping in view the welfare and interest of their child. we are happy at the outcome of our efforts. parties made a genuine attempt to live together and resume their matrimonial life. we adjourned the matter for some time to enable the parties to live together.3. parties are present before us today along with their learned counsel.4. petitioner-wife states that the parties have since been living together along with their daughter and that she has no complaint against her husband any more and wants to live with him. the respondent-husband has also said likewise and filed an undertaking, which he reiterates in the court, stating that he will live in a separate house along with his wife and child and will not inflict any mental or physical harassment to her and will maintain the child and the wife affectionately and properly. it is also stated that he shall be staying away from his parents and that he would ensure that his parent do not interfere with the matrimonial life of the parties. the petitioner-wife also assures us that.....