Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
Law Articles
SEARCH
Evidence" is the raw material which a judge or adjudicator uses to reach "findings of
fact". The findings of fact that the evidence generates are - for all their flaws - "what
happened" for all intents and purposes of the legal proceeding. If you do not agree
with the fact-finding that has been made (or even if you know it to be wrong),
recognize that the rules of evidence are the best rules that law know of to reach the
necessary goal of fact-finding.
“In its original sense the word ‘evidence’ signifies, the state of being evident i.e. plain, Top
apparent or notorious. But…. It is applied to that which tends to render evidence or
generate proof …. The fact sought to be proved is called the principal fact; the fact
which tends to establish it, the evidentiary fact”
Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used
to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented
by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish
the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in Holland v. United States .
that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct]
evidence" Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little
practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials. Similarly in
India the two leading case of Priyadarshani Matoo and Jessica Lal were heavily based
on circumstantial evidence.
Evidence as per Indian law Section S of Indian Evidence Act 1872 defines evidence
which is more definite meaning, viz, the first one. Evidence thus signifies only the
instruments by means of which relevant facts are brought before the Court .Evidence
is generally divided into three categories facts are brought before the Court. Evidence
is generally divided into three categories:
1) oral or personal
2) documentary and,
3) material or real.
Top
The definition of “evidence “must be read together with that of “proved”. The combine
results of these two definition is that evidence under the Indian Evidence Act which is
not only the medium of proof but there are in addition to this , number of other”
matter” which the Courts has to take into consideration, when forming its conclusion.
Thus the definition of “evidence” in the Indian evidence Act is incomplete and narrow.
In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, the Supreme Court has held that
under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, besides oral and documentary evidence,
electronic record can also be admitted as evidence. The Court further stated that
evidence ruled in criminal matters could be by way of electronic records, which would
also include videoconferencing ,Hence “ what is no evidence”
Direct Evidence
In this sense direct evidence is the evidence is that which goes expressly to the very
point in question and proves it, if believed without aid from inference or deductive
reasoning, e.g., eye witness to a murder is direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence
Thus the judiciary in following landmark judgment has ruled the important role played
by circumstantial evidence which can later become the sole bases of conviction. In
Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar wherein it has been held as follows:-
Top
What evidentiary value or weight has to be attached to such statement, must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In a proper
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In a proper
case, it may be permissible to convict a person only on the basis of a dying declaration
in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case........”
As pointed out by Fazal Ali, J, in V.C. Shukla vs. State" in most cases it will be difficult
to get direct evidence of the agreement, but a conspiracy can be inferred even from
circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement
between two or more persons to commit an offence. As per Wadhwa, J. in Nalini's
case.
The well known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every
incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and "the
circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible
conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis
against the guilt is possible.
Similarly in the famous case of Bodh Raj V. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Court held
that circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for conviction provided the conditions
as stated below is fully staisfied. Condition are:
1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accussed;
3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency ;
a. That the circumstances should, to a moral certanity , actually exclude every
hypotheis expectthe one proposed to be proved.
'That I know the defendant is guilty, my hands are tied. As a judge, I can only go by the
evidence provided by the investigative agencies.' These were the words of Additional
Sessions Judge G P Thareja, who acquitted Santosh Kumar Singh, Delhi University law
student who committed rape and murder of Priyadharshani Matto. But However the
Delhi High court said that the overall analysis of the circumstances proved beyond
doubt and the evidence is unimpeachable that Singh has committed rape and murder.
"We are of the view to convict him (Singh) under section 302 (murder) and 376 (rape) of
the Indian Penal Code," the Bench said. The Court observed that the trial court verdict
was "perverse" and shocked the judicial conscience. The court said the evidence was
incompatible with Singh's plea of innocence and "we held him guilty of the offence he
committed".
Likewise in long-awaited State v Sidhartha Vashisht and Others- Held, this case is
one that has shocked the confidence of the society in the criminal delivery system.
Wrapping up the appeal in 25 hearings, a Bench comprising Justice R S Sodhi and
Justice P K Bhasin, which had given death sentence to Santosh Kumar Singh in the
Priyadarshni Mattoo case, also convicted Vikas Yadav, an accused in the Nitish
Katara murder case, and Amardeep Singh Gill alias Tony, an executive in a
multinational firm, for conspiracy and destruction of evidence.
"We have no hesitation in holding that Manu Sharma is guilty of an offence under
Section 302 (murder) of IPC for having committed the murder of Jessica Lal ... As also
under Section 27 of the Arms Act," the Bench said allowing the appeal of the Delhi
Police.
"In the totality of circumstances adduced from material on record, the judgment under
challenge appears to us to be an immature assessment.
Conclusion Top
The whole discussion essentially brings us back to the fundamental question of
whether Circumstantial evidence is a sole base of conviction or not. Undeniable the
conclusion would be affirmative in true spirit .Undoubtedly; circumstantial evidence
plays a pivotal role in criminal case. heavily based on circumstantial evidence.
circumstantial evidence" which helped prosecution nail in various landmark cases
mentioned abov was heavily based on circumstantial evidence.
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important
than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered
more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on
circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or
indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over
direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate. Where the case is
not based entirely or substantially on circumstantial evidence, a modified direction in
respect of circumstantial evidence may be appropriate when summing-up in respect of
an element of the offence which is based entirely or substantially on circumstantial
evidence.
Reference
1) 2003(2)RCR (Criminal)SC771
2) 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]
3) 1983) 1 SCC 211 (pp. 214-15, Para 71980 (2) SCC 665
4) 1999 (5) SCC 253], (supra) at page 516
5) AIR 2002 SC 316
6) 20/12/2006 (DELHI HIGH COURT)
7) Circumstantial Evidence: Death, Life, And Justice In A Southern Town (Paperback) by
Pete Earley
8) Indian Evidence Law By Justice Muneer
The author can be reached at: sudershani@legalserviceindia.com / Print This Article
Top
Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles
Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles
Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com
Articles of Yesteryears
Top
Latest legal Articles written by
imminent writers and legal experts -…
Dying Declaration
Admissions and
Confessions under
Indian Evidence
Act,1972
Discharge
Application
Evidentiary Value of
Accomplice In The
Light of Procedural
Laws In India
Top
Lawyers in India - Search By City
Top