Introduction

In legal proceedings, evidence is critical because it serves as the factual foundation for decision-making. It aids
in establishing the truth, refuting claims, and ensuring fair outcomes by allowing informed decisions to be made
based on credible and reliable information. The term ‘Evidence’ is derived from the Latin word “Evidentia”,
which means ‘being clear’ or ‘apparently clear’. The Latin word “Evidene” or “Evidere” means to demonstrate,
prove, or discover clearly. It means to make visible, to make certain to ascertain or to prove.

As per Section 2 (e) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 1

Evidence means and includes the following:

 All statements made before the Court by witnesses about matters of fact under investigation, which the
Court permits or requires; such statements are called oral evidence.

 All documents (including electronic records) are presented for the inspection of the Court; such
documents are called documentary evidence.
Evidence can be further classified into direct evidence and circumstantial evidence; direct evidence is a piece of
evidence that directly relates to the issue in question and provides firsthand knowledge or observation of the
event or circumstance while its antithesis i.e., circumstantial evidence requires inferences or deductions to
support a claim relying on surrounding circumstances rather than direct observation.

Definition And Contextual Framework Of Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence, engages in the art of deducing or drawing logical
inferences from the intricate circumstances enveloping a particular event or situation. In opposition to direct
evidence, which definitively establishes or refutes a fact, Circumstantial evidence relies on circumstances and
requires analyzing facts and circumstances to come to a reasonable conclusion about what happened. It gains
strength from collecting various facts, events, and situations that, when collectively taken into consideration,
lead to a logical conclusion about the fact issue or the crime.

Circumstantial evidence plays a pivotal role in the Indian legal system, lending a helping hand to the courts in
their quest for truth, by skilfully drawing reasonable inferences from the available facts, It excels in cases where
the cloak of direct evidence is absent, leaving the determination of guilt or innocence in jeopardy. It can be
helpful to fill the gaps and form a chain of events by piecing together various circumstantial facts. These facts
can include physical clues, behavioural clues, and witness testimonies. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence
can be used to corroborate other strands of evidence or unveil motives, intent, or opportunities.

1
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 Universal BARE ACT

Page 1 of 7
Types Of Circumstantial Evidence

Physical Clues: Physical objects that can be seen, touched, gathered, and examined are considered to be
Physical clues. Examples include footprints, weapons, tool marks, DNA samples, fibers, blood stains, and trace
evidence.

Behavioural Clues: Behavioural clues include studying the actions, behaviours, and patterns of people
involved in the case. For example, signs of nervousness, unusual behaviour, and attempt to conceal evidence or
withhold information, can all provide valuable circumstantial evidence.

Documentary Clues: Written or recorded materials that indirectly support a conclusion are considered
documentary evidence. In an investigation, financial records, text messages, emails, photographs, or other
documents can provide context or establish connections. A documented exchange between individuals involved
in the crime, for example, can serve as circumstantial evidence, providing insight into their intentions or
involvement.

Expert Opinion And Analysis: Expert Opinion and analysis play an important role in circumstantial evidence.
Based on their experience, forensic experts, psychologists, or other professionals with specific knowledge can
offer interpretations or conclusions. Their testimony can give insight into complex issues such as the
significance of physical evidence, individual behaviour, or the validity of documentary evidence. In court, these
expert judgments serve as convincing circumstantial evidence.

Witness Statements And Testimonies: Witness statements and testimonies are important components of
circumstantial evidence. Individuals who witnessed or were part of the circumstances surrounding the case may
be able to provide accounts that indirectly support certain facts. Witness testimony, for example, can confirm or
refute other evidence, offer insight into the accused's behaviour or activities, or construct a chronology of
events. These statements contribute to the circumstantial evidence by providing a more comprehensive
knowledge of the case.

Essentials Of Circumstantial Evidence

According to C.J. Monir, circumstantial evidence must be both exclusive and decisive; the following are some
of the essentials laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan 2 – “The
principles can be set out as under:

2
Shanti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (Cri. Appeal No. 954 of 2005)

Page 2 of 7
 i. The circumstances from which interference of guilt is sought to be proved must be conjointly or firmly
established.
ii. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the
accused.
iii. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that with an all-human probability, the crime was committed by the accused or none else.
iv. The circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis, same that of the
guilt of the accused.” [Para 8]

These principles are reiterated in the case of Padala Veera Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh.3

Another landmark judgement in India that dealt with circumstantial evidence is the case of Hanumant v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, which was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1952. This case established the
"doctrine of circumstantial evidence" which is commonly known as "Hanumant's doctrine". In this case, the
accused was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence for the murder of his wife. The Supreme Court
laid down a set of guidelines for the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, which are commonly referred to as
the "Hanumant's doctrine". These guidelines are:

 The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be formed must be completely established,
and they must 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 thorough that it leaves no reasonable room for a finding consistent
with the accused's innocence and must demonstrate that the act must have been committed by the
accused in all human probability.

These guidelines laid down in Hanumant case are widely followed in India and are considered as a standard for
evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. This case is considered as one of the most important cases
in Indian criminal jurisprudence, as it lays down principles for the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, which
are followed till date.

Admissibility Of Circumstantial Evidence

3
Padala Veera Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1989) Supp (2) SCC 706

Page 3 of 7
considered. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in different jurisdictions, although certain essential principles
apply. Circumstantial evidence must meet the following conditions in order to be admissible:

Relevance: Circumstantial evidence must be relevant to the subject at hand. It should be reasonably related to
the facts in issue and should assist the judge in reaching a fair decision concerning the accused's guilt or
innocence.

Probative value: Circumstantial evidence must have probative value, which means that it must increase or
decrease the probability of fact in issue. If the probative value of evidence is high, it’s more likely to be
admitted.

Reliability: The evidence must be trustworthy. This implies that it must be credible and based on credible
sources, expert opinions, or scientific methods.

Prejudice: The court must consider whether the evidence will result in unfair prejudice against the accused. If
the evidence's probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial impact, it may be excluded.

There are several landmark judgments addressing the admissibility of circumstantial evidence. In the case of
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee V. State of Madhya Pradesh 4 , the Supreme Court held, to establish the guilt of the
accused person the prosecution must establish the complete chain of transactions, and also the guilt proved must
be beyond any reasonable doubt, without any possibility of an alternative.

In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 5 - This case dealt with the question of whether
the prosecution can prove its case solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that
circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis for conviction, provided the circumstances are fully established
and are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.

The Importance of Circumstantial Evidence

It can establish a coherent narrative: Circumstantial evidence can be used to connect the dots between
different pieces of evidence, resulting in a complete picture that supports the prosecution's case theory. This can
be very persuasive because it allows the court to see the evidence as a whole and understand how everything fits
together.

It can fill gaps in direct evidence: Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony or confessions, may be
unavailable or unreliable in many cases. For instance, in the case of Jessica Lal Murder case , the decision of the

4
Ashok kumar Chatterjee V. State of Madhya Pradesh(AIR 1989 SC 1890).
5
Sharad V. State of Maharashtra(AIR 1984 SC 1622).

Page 4 of 7
Hon’ble Court was based on circumstantial evidence as here the witness became hostile. The accused Manu
Sharma was held guilty and was punished with life imprisonment based on a chain of circumstantial evidence
that proved his guilt. Circumstantial evidence can fill the gaps by establishing a link between the accused and
the crime. This is especially important when direct evidence is weak or inconclusive.

It can overcome evidentiary hurdles: Circumstantial evidence can resolve evidentiary problems that direct
evidence may have. Direct evidence, for example, could be vulnerable to problems such as witness credibility,
faulty memory, or fabrication. But contrary to direct evidence, circumstantial evidence is based on objective and
rational facts and can withstand challenges to witness credibility or other factors.

It can convict without eyewitnesses or confessions: In cases where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime or
the accused does not provide a confession the conviction of the accused becomes difficult; therefore,
circumstantial evidence can help in securing a conviction of the accused. It offers an alternative method of
determining guilt by depending on a combination of indirect clues and inferences that point toward the
accused's involvement in the crime.

The Limitations of Circumstantial Evidence:

Possibility of Alternative Explanations: Circumstantial evidence can often be interpreted in different ways.
This means that there could be other explanations for the circumstances that do not involve the accused.

Reliance on Inferences: Circumstantial evidence is based on inferences, which means that it is based on
assumptions. These assumptions are subjective and may be incorrect.

Insufficient Conclusive Proof: Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove a fact, but instead it weaves a
tapestry of inferences and deductions to arrive at a conclusion. Unlike the raw power of eyewitness accounts or
the weight of confession, circumstantial evidence struggles to establish conclusive proof of guilt or innocence.

Overreliance and Prejudice: Where no direct evidence is available, there is a risk of overreliance on
circumstantial evidence. Because judges may place undue weight on interpretations based on speculations or
deductions, and this over-dependence can lead to prejudice against the accused.

Misinterpretation or Misapplication: Circumstantial evidence is susceptible to misinterpretation or

Page 5 of 7
Conclusion
Circumstantial evidence is important because it can be used to infer a fact that is not directly observable. It can
be used to establish a chain of events or a pattern of behaviour that can be used to support or refute a claim. It
can also be used to establish motive, intent, or knowledge. In some cases, circumstantial evidence can be just as
convincing as direct evidence, the Indian judiciary has time and time again from its judgment has held the
importance of circumstantial evidence and it is an important aspect of judicial proceedings. must be a chain of
evidence so thorough that it leaves no reasonable room for a finding consistent with the accused's innocence and
must demonstrate that the act must have been committed by the accused in all human probability.

Page 6 of 7
Bibliography
1. Case Laws

 Shanti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (Cri. Appeal No. 954 of 2005).
 Padala Veera Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1989) Supp (2) SCC 706.
 Sharad V. State of Maharashtra(AIR 1984 SC 1622).
 Ashok kumar Chatterjee V. State of Madhya Pradesh(AIR 1989 SC 1890).
 Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma V. State of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (69) ACC 833 (SC).
 Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1952

2. Statutes

 The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 Universal BARE ACT.

3. Books

 The Law Of Evidence By Batuk Lal.

4. Web Sources

 https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/indian-circumstantial-evidence-history-15502.asp

Page 7 of 7