#fingerprint evidence

The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld a murder and theft conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that a conclusive chain linking the accused to the crime-including recovery of stolen property, fingerprint evidence, and motive-is sufficient for conviction, even with hostile witnesses and the death of the informant. This ruling reinforces that direct evidence is not mandatory under Indian criminal law if the circumstances unequivocally point to guilt.

Sikkim High Court reinforces that revisional powers under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) cannot be invoked to reassess concurrent findings of lower courts unless there is a manifest error or miscarriage of justice. The ruling underscores the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, impacting appellate strategy in criminal cases.