Can circumstantial evidence be the sole basis of conviction

In State of UP v Ravindra Prakash Mittal, it was laid down that in the absence of direct evidence, a person can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the following conditions are met with:

●The circumstances are conclusive.

●The conclusion drawn from such circumstances is fully established.

●Facts established should be consistent with the accused's guilt.

In Laxman Naik v State of Orissa, the conviction of the accused, who was guilty for the rape and murder of a 7 year old girl, was on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Hope this helps!

I completely agree with Raveena Kataria.citations given by her particularly State of U.P vs Ravindra prakash Mittal,is absolutely fit case on circumstantial evidence.

yes it can be. In Bodhraj vs J&K it was held that circumstantial evidence must be tightly estd with guilt of accused