Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 106– There are two important consequences that play out when an offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the accused is said to have been present. Firstly, the standard of proof expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence is lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence. Secondly, the accused would be under a duty to explain as to the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased. In that sense, there is a limited shifting of the onus of proof. If he remains quiet or offers a false explanation, then such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances. [Referred to Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, [2006] Supp. (7) S.C.R. 156] (Para 24)
Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Panchsheel of proof, for a case based on circumstantial evidence: insofar as the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; there must be a chain of evidence so complete 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. [Referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 ]