https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197517 In a murder case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court reiterated that conviction is permissible only when every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is excluded. The prosecution failed to prove motive adequately, and the medical evidence did not conclusively rule out death from epilepsy. As two views on the evidence remained reasonably possible, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed, because suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197517 In a murder case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court reiterated that conviction is permissible only when every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is excluded. The prosecution failed to prove motive adequately, and the medical evidence did not conclusively rule out death from epilepsy. As two views on the evidence remained reasonably possible, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed, because suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Apr 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197517