Unveiling the Facts: A Guide

to CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

DECODING EVIDENCE :

In a layman terms we can describe evidence as - “Evidence would be any

footprints, witness testimonies, or objects found at the scene that could help you
understand what happened”.We may also describe evidence as “any facts,
opinions, or experiences you consider before making your choice”.

Throughout history, jurists have continuously refined and debated the concept of
evidence famous English philosopher Jeremy Bentham described evidence as -
"Evidence is any matter of fact, the effect, tendency, or design of which, when
presented to the mind, is to produce a persuasion concerning the existence of
some other matter of fact."

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines evidence as statements made before the
court by witnesses about matters of fact under investigation (oral evidence) and
documents, including electronic records, presented for court inspection
(documentary evidence).

The Evidence Equation: Weighing the

Essentials:

Only information that meets the essential criteria of ;

1. relevance,
2. reliability,
3. credibility, and
4. weight
can be rightfully termed "evidence."

1.Relevance: Connected to the matter at hand, shedding light on the issue at

stake. Think of it as a piece of the puzzle.

2.Reliability: Comes from a trustworthy source and gathered using proper

methods. Unreliable sources, like someone biased or far from the event, weaken
the evidence.

3.Credibility: Believable and consistent, not inherently contradictory or easily

refuted. Imagine a witness with consistent accounts, strengthening its credibility.
4.Weight: Holds varying degrees of significance. Strong evidence, like eyewitness
testimony, holds more weight than circumstantial evidence.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCES :

Evidences can be broadly classified into 10 catgories under the Indian Evidence
Act, including:

1.Oral Evidence: Statements made by witnesses regarding matters of fact under

inquiry.
2.Documentary Evidence: Documents, including electronic records, presented
for court inspection.
3.Primary Evidence: The original document itself, considered the best form of
evidence.
4.Secondary Evidence: Copies or substitutes for the original document,
admissible under specific conditions.
5.Real Evidence: Physical objects presented as evidence.
6.Hearsay Evidence: Information reported by someone who did not directly
witness the event.
7.Judicial Evidence: Evidence given in a court of law.
8.Non-Judicial Evidence: Evidence given outside a court of law, such as
confessions made by the accused outside the court in the presence of any person
or admissions of a party.
9.Direct Evidence: Evidence that directly establishes a fact without the need for
interpretation.
10.Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect evidence that supports a conclusion based
on related facts

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE :

Circumstantial evidence is collection of clues that, when pieced together and

interpreted, can point towards a conclusion, even though it doesn't directly
witness or document the event in question.

Circumstantial evidence, unlike direct evidence, relies on inference to draw

conclusions from related facts, raising challenges of interpretation and reliability.

FEATURE DIRECT EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE
Connection to the fact Directly proves the fact Requires inference to
connect to the fact
Level of inference Minimal or none Requires strong inference
Example Witness testimony of the Fingerprints at the crime
crime scene

While direct evidence establishes facts definitively, circumstantial evidence, by its

nature, requires careful interpretation and faces challenges related to potential
misinterpretation, reliability, and due process concerns.

There are three main concerns which may arise while dealing with the nexus of
circumstantial evidences :
1.Misinterpretation and Bias:

A)Incomplete picture: Circumstantial evidence can create an incomplete

picture of events, leading to inaccurate interpretations. What may seem like a
clear chain of events to the prosecution might have alternative explanations that
the defense can present.
B)Confirmation bias: Investigators and jurors may subconsciously focus on
evidence that confirms their initial suspicions and overlook contradictory
information, leading to biased conclusions.

2.Unreliability and Fabrication:

A)Inconclusive nature: Circumstantial evidence, by its very nature, doesn't

directly prove a fact. Even a seemingly strong chain of events can be challenged
by alternative explanations, raising doubts about its reliability.
B)Fabrication: Circumstantial evidence, such as witness testimonies or physical
evidence, can be fabricated or misinterpreted, leading to wrongful convictions.

3.Challenges to Due Process:

A)Burden of proof: In cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the

burden of proof rests heavily on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. This can be extremely difficult, especially if the defense can
present alternative explanations for the circumstances.
B)Right to a fair trial: The reliance on circumstantial evidence can raise
concerns about the right to a fair trial, particularly when the evidence is complex
or open to interpretation.

Due to its potential for misinterpretation and challenges to reliability,

circumstantial evidence is often scrutinized; recognizing this, the Supreme Court
of India has established principles to guide its use in resolving disputes

‘PANCHSHEEL’ PRINCIPLES :

In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116,

the bench of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan and Sabyasachi Mukherjee, JJ
laid down the following five golden principles i.e. the panchsheel of the proof of a
case based on circumstantial evidence:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved,
and
(5) 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.

Based on the principles outlined in the ruling, we can infer that Supreme court of
India require four key elements for circumstantial evidence to be admissible and
used to convict:
A)Unequivocally established facts: The evidence pointing towards guilt must
be definitively proven, leaving no room for ambiguity.
B)Exclusive consistency with guilt: Established facts must solely support the
accused's guilt and be incompatible with any other reasonable explanation.
C)Conclusive nature: The evidence must be compelling and leave no reasonable
doubt about the accused's involvement.
D)Unbroken chain of evidence: The evidence must form a complete and
continuous chain, logically leading to the conclusion of the accused's guilt.

TEST OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE :

In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), it
was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such
evidence must satisfy the following tests:

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn,

must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that
there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime
was committed by the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete
and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the
accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

The Supreme Court of India through the medium of this particular ruling cleared
all the ambiguity around the usage and application of the circumstantial
evidences ;

1. Firmly Established Facts: The evidence suggesting guilt must be concretely

proven and reliable, leaving no room for speculation or doubt.

2. Definite Tendency Towards Guilt: The established facts must

unambiguously point towards the accused's guilt and not be compatible with any
other reasonable explanation for the events.

3. Complete Chain of Evidence: The evidence must form a complete and

unbroken chain that logically leads to the conclusion of the accused's guilt,
eliminating any alternative explanations.

4. Inconsistent with Innocence: The evidence must be strong and conclusive,

leaving no reasonable doubt about the accused's involvement and be
incompatible with any possibility of their innocence.

In essence, these principles emphasize the need for strong, unambiguous, and
conclusive evidence to convict someone based solely on circumstantial evidence.
When is Circumstantial Evidence Strong

Enough for a Guilty Verdict?

In C.Changa Reddy V. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193 In a case based on

circumstantial evidence the settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn should be proved and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature . Moreover all the circumstances should be complete and
there should be no gap left in chain of evidence .Futher, the proved circumstances
must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and totally
inconsistent with his innocence

From the ruling given by the Supreme court we may conclude that In cases
relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the following:

All the Facts:Every piece of evidence pointing to the accused's guilt must be
firmly established.
Clear Connections: The circumstances must form an unbroken chain of events
that clearly point to the accused.
No Other Explanations: The evidence must ONLY support the conclusion of the
accused's guilt and rule out any possibility of innocence.

In Hukum Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063, the Supreme Court
too held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must
be fully proved. In Eradu v State AIR 1956 SC 316, it was held by Supreme
Court that circumstantial evidence should point inevitably to the conclusion that it
was the accused and the accused only who were the perpetrators of the offence
and such evidence should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.

From rulings provided by the Supreme court we can have a conclusion that ;

1. Thorough Proof: Every piece of evidence pointing to the accused's guilt must
be completely proven and leave no room for doubt.

2. Incompatibility with Innocence: The circumstances presented as evidence

must unequivocally point to the accused as the perpetrator and be completely
incompatible with the possibility of their innocence.

When Circumstance Isn't Clear: Addressing

Ambiguity in Evidence

Supreme court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992
Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating
circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two
inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed
out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

A close examination of this ruling reveals four readily apparent principles:

Ambiguous Evidence Favors the Accused: When circumstantial evidence
could point to multiple conclusions, the interpretation favoring the accused's
innocence must be adopted.
Strength & Consistency Matter: Every piece of circumstantial evidence must
be thoroughly proven, and when taken together, all evidence must point solely
towards the guilt of the accused .
Defense Advantage: This principle creates a high standard for the prosecution
in cases relying primarily on circumstantial evidence.
Protection from Misinterpretation: By emphasizing this standard, the
likelihood of a wrongful conviction based on inconclusive evidence is reduced.

The Impact of Motive on Circumstantial

Evidence:

In the case of Rohtash Kumar vs State Of Haryana [(2013) 14 SCC 434]

Supreme court held that - “The evidence regarding the existence of a motive
which operates in the mind of the accused is very often very limited, and may not
be within the reach of others. The motive driving the accused to commit an
offence may be known only to him and to no other. In a case of circumstantial
evidence, motive may be a very relevant factor. However, it is the perpetrator of
the crime alone who is aware of the circumstances that prompted him to adopt a
certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the
evidence on record suggests adequately, the existence of the necessary motive
required to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has in fact,
committed the same.”

While the presence of a motive can be suggestive in circumstantial evidence

cases, it is important to remember that it is not enough to definitively conclude
guilt and further investigation and evidence are necessary.We can draw the
following conclusion based on the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
court;

Motive behind a crime is often difficult to prove and may only be known to the
perpetrator.
In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, establishing motive becomes
important to strengthen the case.
If enough evidence points towards a motive, it can indirectly connect the accused
to the crime.

In the case of In the case of Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police

Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 Supreme Court held as under:

“29. In N.J. Suraj v. State [(2004) 11 SCC 346 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 85]
the prosecution case was based entirely upon circumstantial evidence and a
motive. Having discussed the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, this
Court rejected the motive which was the only remaining circumstance relied upon
by the prosecution stating that the presence of a motive was not enough
27 for supporting a conviction, for it is well settled that the chain of circumstances
should be such as to lead to an irresistible conclusion, that is incompatible with
the innocence of the accused.
31. … In any event, motive alone can hardly be a ground for conviction.
32. On the materials on record, there may be some suspicion against the accused,
but as is often said, suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof.”

When prosecutions case is solely based upon the motive and circumstantial
evidences :
The prosecution in a case relied solely on circumstantial evidence and motive to
convict the accused.
The court rejected the motive as evidence, stating that it cannot solely support a
conviction.
The court emphasized the need for a strong chain of circumstantial evidence that
clearly points towards the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for any other
explanation.
Even a strong motive is not enough to convict someone if there is lack of concrete
proof.

In the case of Ramanand @Nandlal Bharti versus State of Uttar Pradesh

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 64-65 OF 2022;Supreme court held that :
90. Thus, even if it is believed that the accused appellant had a motive to
commit the crime, the same may be an important circumstance in a case based
on circumstantial evidence but cannot take the place as a conclusive proof that
the person concerned was the author of the crime. One could even say that the
presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong
suspicion against the accused appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot
be a substitute for proof of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

from the observation made in the judgement we can draw the following
conclusions :

1.Having a motive is considered significant in circumstantial cases, but it's not

conclusive evidence.
2.Motive creates strong suspicion, but suspicion, no matter how strong, is not
enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burden of proof in Circumstantial evidences :

In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, while dealing with

circumstantial evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to
prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot
be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this
Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully
established.

from the observation made in the judgement we can draw the following
conclusions :

A)Prosecution's Responsibility: In cases built on circumstantial evidence, the

prosecution must establish a complete chain of events that leaves no room for
reasonable doubt. Gaps or weaknesses in their case cannot be rectified by
pointing to a flawed defense argument by the accused.
B)Conditions for Conviction: Before a conviction can be reached using
circumstantial evidence, certain conditions must be undeniably proven by the
prosecution

Necessity of corroboration of
circumstantial evidences :
Circumstantial evidence, hinting at events rather than directly proving them,
relies heavily on corroboration. This additional evidence strengthens the
argument by building a cohesive chain of logic, minimizing alternative
explanations, and ensuring the prosecution's theory holds against scrutiny.
Essentially, corroboration helps ensure convictions based on circumstantial
evidence are not based solely on coincidence or misinterpretations

In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (AIR 1992 SC
840) wherein this Court in paragraph 9 of the report observed:-
"This Court has, time out of number observed that while appreciating
circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and
should record a conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete pointing
to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being
negatived on evidence. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial
evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences,
the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstance relied upon
must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the
facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. But this
is not to say that the prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put
forward by the accused however far-fetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does it
mean that prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because
the law permits rejection if the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise."

From the observation made in the case in hand we can conclude that :

Strict Standards for Conviction

The court emphasizes a cautious approach when using circumstantial evidence.

A conviction requires a complete chain of evidence that clearly points to the
accused's guilt.
Any reasonable doubt about the accused's innocence must be addressed by the
evidence.

Evaluating Evidence

Each piece of circumstantial evidence must be fully established.

The combined effect of all evidence should only support the hypothesis of guilt.

Defense Arguments

The prosecution doesn't need to disprove far-fetched defenses.

Minor doubts shouldn't automatically reject prosecution evidence, only reasonable
doubts justify rejection.

Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [2001 (3)
SCC 628] in which one of us (U.C. Banerjee, J) was a party. The opinion of the
Court runs as under:
"Incidentally, success of the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence
will however depend on the availability of a complete chain of events so as not to
leave any doubt for the conclusion that the act must have been done by the
accused person. While. however, it is true that there should be no missing links, in
the chain of events so far as the prosecution is concerned, but it is not that every
one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these
links may only be inferred from the proven facts. Circumstances of strong
suspicion without, however. any conclusive evidence are not sufficient to justify
the conviction and it is on this score that great care must be taken in evaluating
the circumstantial evidence. In any event, on the availability of two inferences,
the one in favour of the accused must be accepted and the law is well settled on
this score.

on the basis of above ruling it can be concluded that :

Complete Chain, Not Every Detail:

A successful prosecution based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete
chain of events, leaving no reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.
This chain doesn't need to have every single detail explicitly proven: some links
can be inferred from established facts.
Insufficient Evidence and Caution:
Strong suspicion alone, without conclusive evidence, isn't enough for conviction.
Careful evaluation of circumstantial evidence is crucial.
If two explanations are possible based on the evidence, the one favoring the
accused must be accepted.
Conclusion:

Navigating the Labyrinth of Circumstantial Evidence: A Deep Dive into the Indian
Legal System
Circumstantial evidence, a mosaic of seemingly unconnected pieces forming a
bigger picture, plays a crucial role in the Indian legal system. However, its
inherent complexities necessitate a deep understanding of the principles
governing its use to ensure fair and accurate application. This comprehensive
exploration delves into the intricate connection between circumstantial evidence
and various legal concepts, highlighting the safeguards in place to prevent
miscarriages of justice.
At its core, circumstantial evidence relies on inference and interpretation, drawing
conclusions from indirect clues rather than direct observation. This characteristic,
while offering valuable insights, also presents challenges. Misinterpretation,
inherent ambiguity, and the potential for unreliable sources can cast doubt on the
validity of the evidence, raising concerns about the possibility of wrongful
convictions.
Recognizing these challenges, the Supreme Court of India has established a
robust framework to guide the use of circumstantial evidence. The "Panchsheel"
principles and the established "tests" for evaluating such evidence serve as
essential safeguards. These principles emphasize the need for unequivocally
established facts, exclusive consistency with guilt, conclusiveness, and an
unbroken chain of evidence, leaving no room for reasonable doubt about the guilt
of the accused.
Furthermore, the burden of proof rests heavily on the prosecution. They must
present a complete and unbroken chain of evidence, effectively building a
compelling narrative that leaves no room for alternative explanations. Every piece
of evidence needs to be firmly established and corroborated by additional
sources, minimizing the risk of misinterpretations and strengthening the case
against the accused.
However, the defense also plays a crucial role in this intricate dance. The court
emphasizes that unreasonable doubts about the prosecution's case, even in the
presence of circumstantial evidence, should be interpreted in favor of the
accused. This ensures a fair balance between upholding the law and protecting
the fundamental rights of individuals.
Finally, while motive can be a relevant factor in cases relying on circumstantial
evidence, it cannot solely determine guilt. The presence of a motive, regardless of
its strength, cannot substitute for concrete and conclusive evidence that
definitively points towards the accused's involvement in the crime.
In conclusion, navigating the complexities of circumstantial evidence requires a
nuanced understanding of the challenges it presents, the safeguards established
by the legal system, and the delicate balance between ensuring a fair trial and
upholding the law. By adhering to the established principles and ensuring
meticulous evaluation of evidence, the Indian legal system strives to achieve
justice in cases where direct evidence might be unavailable.
BY -

ABHINANDAN KORI