Similarity Report ID: oid:9832:46052579

PAPER NAME

evidence handmade.docx

WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT

3433 Words 19078 Characters

PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE

12 Pages 46.2KB

SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE

Nov 5, 2023 10:49 PM GMT+5:30 Nov 5, 2023 10:50 PM GMT+5:30

20% Overall Similarity

The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
18% Internet database 2% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
16% Submitted Works database

Excluded from Similarity Report

Bibliographic material Quoted material
Cited material Small Matches (Less then 8 words)

Summary
Abstract

The judicial interpretation of circumstantial evidence and its constraints in the administration
of justice within a judicial system is a crucial and complex matter that surpasses legal
jurisdictions and remains an integral aspect of the criminal justice system. The present study
examines the complex terrain of circumstantial evidence, thoroughly investigating its
significance, admissibility, interpretation, and the limitations it puts on the quest for justice.
Circumstantial evidence, despite its lack of directness compared to eyewitness testimony or
confessions, is an essential element in judicial procedures. The present study sheds light on the
intricate and ever-changing characteristics of circumstantial evidence, showcasing its ability to
form a comprehensive assemblage of interrelated facts and deductions that, as a whole, can
establish culpability or innocence. However, this approach is not without its drawbacks, which
encompass the possibility of misunderstanding, cognitive biases, and the impact of external
influences such as media portrayal. This study highlights the significant role played by the
courts in providing guidance in the assessment of the evidentiary value of circumstantial
evidence in relation to its potential for bias. This statement highlights the significant impact
that technology, forensic science, and progressive legal changes have had on the interpretation
of said evidence. Moreover, the analysis explores the ethical and moral ramifications,
eventually endorsing a fair and knowledgeable stance toward circumstantial evidence within
the legal setting. Through a comprehensive examination of actual cases, interviews with
experts, experimental investigations, comparative analyses, and the examination of legislative
23
effects, this study aims to deepen our comprehension of the difficulties and possibilities
associated with circumstantial evidence. By doing so, it seeks to contribute to the promotion
of a fairer and more transparent administration of justice.
8
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 The methodology for this project shall be doctrinal and, hence, data shall be consolidated
using textbooks, commentaries, legal databases etc. The information gathered through a
literature review was obtained by searching through, reviewing, and interpreting research
materials obtained from a variety of sources (such as legislation, law books, journal articles,
and others).

Chapter 1
22
In the context of legal proceedings within a Court of Law, certain pieces of evidence may be
deemed admissible in order to establish the factual significance of a matter. Additionally,
evidence may be admitted if it serves to bolster a narrative or assist the court in comprehending
12
other pieces of evidence. But, as per the interpretation of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, of
18721, evidence means and includes:

The general meaning of the term “evidence” is “the available body of facts or information indicating
whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”:

27 11
• matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; All statements that the court
permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to
5
• All documents [including electronic records] produced for the inspection of the court.
7
The Supreme Court has held that under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, besides oral and
documentary evidence, electronic records can also be admitted as evidence.2

24
In situations where the central inquiry is to the presence or absence of the accused at the
location of the criminal incident, the inclusion of testimonial evidence from a bystander who
17
identifies the defendant as being present at the scene serves as supportive evidence. In order to
establish the absence of the accused from the scene of the crime, it is necessary for them to
provide oral or documentary evidence in accordance with the provisions outlined in Section 3.
25
Further evidence can be categorized into two types: direct evidence and circumstantial
evidence.

13
1 Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2 State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2053
 Direct Evidence

It is referred to as a fact that does not draw its inference from any other statement. Furthermore,
it is capable of independent establishment. Direct evidence is characterized by its ability to
promptly substantiate the veracity of a claim without necessitating additional elucidation or
facilitation.

The witness's testimony pertains to the primary fact that requires proof, such as the testimony
or statement provided by an individual who affirms the occurrence of the incident that
establishes the crime. Moreover, it is plausible that the material in question could be classified
as documentary in nature. It is significantly less complex and more advantageous to employ or
deduce whatever requires substantiation in this particular instance.

In legal proceedings, direct evidence typically holds greater weight than circumstantial
evidence due to its ability to directly establish facts, as opposed to relying on inference or
deduction. We will further understand how the evidentiary value of Circumstantial evidence
is less than that of other kinds of evidence.

30
Circumstantial evidence
1
Circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence in which a fact is put before the court and that
fact itself does not tell us anything about the offense or the course of action.3 It is not one of
the elements of the course of action but it allows the court to make some assumptions or some
inferences that bring it very close to being able to define other facts which are directly related
to the chain of the course of action.4

For example, it was noted that Bob was present in the vicinity of the Crane and was in
possession of the keys to the crane at the location when the Builder met their demise due to an
inadvertent incident involving the falling of bricks from the crane. Subsequently, Bob was
witnessed fleeing the location following the occurrence of the collision. It is evident that these
conclusions exhibit a high degree of coincidence. The aforementioned implications strongly
suggest that Bob is the likely perpetrator responsible for the demise of the Builder.

3 Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State AIR 1970 All 51, 1970 CriLJ 132
4 Supra note 2
Circumstantial evidence provides suggestive indications, although it does not provide
definitive conclusions.

Hypothesis-
Accused individuals may be subject to conviction based on circumstantial evidence that is
revealed during the course of an inquiry, even in the absence of direct proof.

Research Question-
1. How the chain link theory could potentially applied to deduce a meaningful
hypothesis or proof from circumstantial evidence discovered during an investigation
6
even in the absence of any direct evidence.
2. The Judicial Interpretation of the Evidentiary Value of Circumstantial Evidence and
its Limitations in Administering Justice in a Court of Law.

CHAPTER-2

3
Conviction on the sole basis of Circumstantial Evidence

An undue dedication to the principle of the rule of benefit of the doubt should not be allowed
4
to foster false doubts or lingering distrust, since this would weaken social defense5. Justice
cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an
innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to the law6. Prosecution is not
required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the individual who is being accused
of a crime. There exists a prevalent misconception that indirect evidence has lesser validity or
significance compared to direct proof. This assertion has some validity since direct evidence is

5 Gangadhar Behera & Ors V. State Of Orissa [2002] In sc 434

6 Supra note 3
often seen as more compelling. However, it is worth noting that criminal trials typically heavily
depend on circumstantial evidence for successful outcomes, whereas civil charges usually rest
16
upon circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practical application, circumstantial evidence
sometimes has a notable advantage over direct evidence due to its inherent difficulty to conceal
or manufacture.

The admission of an individual who stands accused is considered highly probative when it is
obtained voluntarily. However, in some instances, accused individuals may be subjected to
coercive measures, such as torture, in order to elicit a confession. Subsequently, these coerced
confessions are used as incriminating evidence against the accused. In contemporary times, it
is very unlikely for a court to consider a confession as admissible evidence if there exists even
the smallest suspicion that torture was used during its acquisition. However, this does not
exclude the possibility of an investigator, who has been assigned the task of collecting
evidence, from using such tactics.

The court, upon careful examination of the evidence produced and the arguments made, arrives
5
at a preliminary determination about the existence or non-existence of the facts asserted or
denied by the parties. then, the court proceeds to ascertain all relevant facts and then applies
14
the applicable legal principles. The court is mandated to issue an order based on the existence
of all the facts presented in accordance with the rule of law, therefore determining the
21
corresponding right or responsibility. According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, when
a court determines the existence of presented facts, such facts are deemed to have been proven.
1
Conversely, if the court determines that the facts do not exist, they are deemed to have been
rejected by the court7.
3
Section 106 pertains to the allocation of the burden of proof for establishing a truth that resides
within the specialized knowledge possessed by an individual. The responsibility of providing
evidence for truth is with the one who possesses knowledge of the fact8.
1
In the two previous cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC
20459 and Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 2002 SC 31610, the courts held that a

7 Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

8 Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
9 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045

10 Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 2002 SC 316

3
conviction can be established
only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that certain basic criteria are met.

29
The burden of proof is in establishing the circumstances that demonstrate the culpability of th
e accused.

• The proven facts should align with the hypothesis put forward by the accused.
• The circumstances should possess a decisive quality and have a clear tendency.
• It is imperative to establish a comprehensive chain of evidence that conclusively prov
5
es the guilt of the accused and verifies their commission of the act, leaving no room f
or reasonable doubt.
• The prevailing circumstances must effectively eliminate all alternative hypotheses, sc
enarios, or situations, except for the one

20
In The case of Sharad v. State of Maharashtra 11 the court held establishment of the conditions
from which the finding of guilt is to be derived is crucial. The proven facts should
exclusively align with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, meaning they should not be
15
explicable by any other hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The circumstances
should possess a definitive character and inclination that unequivocally indicate the
culpability of the accused. It is imperative to eliminate all potential hypotheses except for
the one that is intended to be substantiated. A comprehensive chain of evidence must be
6
established, leaving no reasonable basis for a conclusion that aligns with the innocence of
the accused. Furthermore, this evidence must demonstrate, with a high degree of
likelihood, that the accused is the most probable perpetrator of the act. The
aforementioned set of five fundamental principles represents the panchsheel, or guiding
principles, for establishing the validity of a case relying on circumstantial evidence.

Chain link theory

34 9
According to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof in a criminal case
remains with the prosecution to demonstrate the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
This provision does not allow for the shifting of the burden of proof. In instances where factual

11
Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622)
information exists, particularly within the awareness of the accused, that might potentially shed
light on their culpability or innocence, the accused is not obligated to assert or substantiate such
facts. However, it should be noted that the clause is not inherently irrelevant to criminal
prosecutions. If that were really the situation, it is quite likely that the Legislature would have
explicitly said so in their enactment.

2
Where the accused throws no light at all upon facts which ought to be especially within his
knowledge, and which could support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence,
the Court can also consider his failure to adduce any explanation, in consonance with the
principle of the passage in Deonandan v. State of Bihar12
2
In the case of Smith v. R.13 court held If the accused alone is in a position to explain the only
alternative theory to his guilt, the absence of explanation could be taken into account.

CHAPTER -3

Circumstantial evidence and direct Evidence comparison

As evident from the aforementioned, circumstantial evidence possesses the potential to be

highly persuasive and occasionally exerts considerable influence. However, it is important to
1
acknowledge that circumstantial evidence diverges from direct evidence. In this context, it is
necessary to establish further connections inside one's evidential framework, as the process
involves more than mere personal conviction. The nature of evidence can encompass both
direct evidence and indirect evidence simultaneously, contingent upon the specific objective of
establishing proof. So for example a particular piece of evidence serves as direct confirmation
of the occurrence of rainfall on the previous day. However, it may only be considered
circumstantial evidence if one intends to establish the presence of others in close proximity to
John who were holding umbrellas.

12 Deonandan v. State of Bihar—A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 801

13 Smith v. R. 1918, A.I.R. Mad. 111
The classification of evidence as either direct or circumstantial is contingent upon the specific
allegation being sought to be substantiated. If one is required to establish the occurrence of
rainfall on the previous day, the focus lies on presenting direct proof. If one is required to
establish the presence of umbrellas among the individuals in close proximity to John, the
evidence available would be circumstantial in nature, therefore highlighting a fundamental
distinction. The outcome is contingent upon the specific objective one seeks to establish.

Circumstantial evidence has significant importance within criminal trials due to its role in
establishing the Actus Reus, or the act, and the Mens Rea, or the intention, which are crucial
elements that often require substantiation. In the majority of assault cases, it is sometimes
challenging to get direct evidence pertaining to the mental state (Men's Rea) of the perpetrator,
whereas evidence about the physical act (Actus Reus) is comparatively easier to collect. In
instances where acquiring direct proof of the mens rea proves challenging, circumstantial
evidence is employed as a substitute to establish the mental state of the individual responsible
for the criminal act.

1
As an illustration, the observation made by Suman on Ram's physical act of punching Ravi in
the head serves as direct proof of the Actus Reus. Additionally, Suman can potentially offer
circumstantial evidence pertaining to the mens rea, since Ram's demeanour suggested an
intention to engage in the act of punching. Based on the given information, it may be deduced
that Ram possessed the requisite mental state, known as Men's Rea. The utilization of
circumstantial evidence has significant importance in supporting diverse hypotheses within the
context of criminal prosecution.

The weight of direct evidence depends mostly on the credibility of the witness. If one finds
the witness to be trustworthy and acknowledges their observation of rainfall, then one
possesses substantiation for the matter under consideration. Conversely, circumstantial
evidence necessitates a distinct mode of reasoning.

Initially, it is necessary to acknowledge the acceptance of the underlying proposition, similar

to how one would accept direct evidence. It is reasonable to believe that the witness observed
the wet road. However, a distinct line of reasoning must be pursued, as it is now plausible that
the wet road indicates rainfall from the previous day, yet it is also conceivable that the wetness
of the road signifies that it was recently cleaned.
CHAPTER 4-

Limitation on Proving Guilt on sole basis of Circumstantial evidence

31
Motive refers to the underlying cause that compels or motivates an individual to engage in a
specific action. The presence of motive has significant importance in cases when a conviction
6
is based only on circumstantial evidence. Conversely, the absence of motive might potentially
assist the accused when all necessary connections are not explicitly established.14 However,
absence of motive may not affect the merits of a case if there is other positive evidence available to
3
establish the guilt or innocence,15 but it puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances
more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take the place of legal proof. In the
33
case of murder, the motive is not required to be proved as it is the intention or knowledge which is to
be seen in such cases.16

• The propensity to hastily draw conclusions poses a potential risk.

• The providing of instructions to the court serves as a valuable measure in cautioning
against the aforementioned risk associated with this form of evidence.
• The instructions provided to the jury should serve as a reminder that the inference of
guilt should be the sole reasonable conclusion drawn from the presented evidence.

Case laws-
Circumstantial evidence as Sole evidence to prove guilt?

The Honorable Court considered all the facts presented before the Bench in In Ramawati
Devi vs. the State of Bihar17,The court, in a suitable manner, maintains the expectation

18
14 Haripada Dey v. State of W.B., AIR 1956 SC 757.

28
15 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC16
16 Supra note 6
10
17 Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 164
that factual circumstantial evidence and the inferences derived from it will establish or
bolster a single hypothesis, leaving no room for other hypotheses, and proving beyond a
reasonable doubt.

The Chain Link theory posits that by examining the current legislation within the Act and
its reasonable and logical applicability, one may form a critical and impactful conclusion
regarding the guilt of the accused in circumstantial cases within the social-legal
framework. Therefore, it is important to evaluate these variables.

10
The conviction of an individual can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. In order
to get a conviction, the prosecution must show a coherent sequence of events that
unequivocally implicates the accused and is incompatible with their innocence. The
5
establishment of the chain of circumstances, from which the guilt of the accused may be
inferred, is likewise a crucial aspect for the prosecution. It is important to examine these
factors.

The prosecution must prove a coherent sequence of events that specifically implicates
32
the accused and is incompatible with their innocence.

The Supreme Court rendered its verdict in the well-known Jessica Lal murder case
mostly relying on circumstantial evidence due to the witnesses' recantation of their earlier
19
statements. Initially, the Delhi High Court overturned the trial court's decision to acquit
the accused, Manu Sharma, on the grounds of witness hostility and insufficient evidence.
The High Court subsequently convicted Manu Sharma guilty of the murder of Jessica
Lal, and the Apex court held it.

The Scope and Limitation

Circumstantial evidence is deemed admissible based on its relevance, yet it is not

regarded as conclusive proof. Instead, it serves as a foundation for producing more
comprehensive evidence. The courts have established criteria for circumstances in
14
which conviction can be solely based on circumstantial evidence.

In instances where the fulfilment of the requirements outlined in Section 33 could not
be substantiated, it was determined that the evidence presented during prior civil
proceedings would not be permissible in subsequent criminal proceedings. Alternatively,
1
it was established that while the conditions may be waived through consent in civil cases,
such waivers are not applicable in criminal cases.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the judicial assessment of the probative worth of circumstantial evidence,

as well as its inherent constraints, is of utmost importance in the dispensation of justice
within a court of law. This study has highlighted the importance of circumstantial
evidence as a vital element within the criminal justice system, elucidating its ability to
uncover the truth while also emphasising the necessity for a well-rounded strategy.

Circumstantial evidence inherently lacks the same degree of confidence as direct

evidence, such as eyewitness testimonies or confessions. However, it is a crucial
instrument for both prosecuting and defending solicitors in constructing legal arguments,
as well as for judges and juries in delivering judgements. The inherent value of
circumstantial evidence rests in its capacity to offer a comprehensive assemblage of
interrelated facts and logical deductions, which collectively serve to indicate culpability
or innocence. Nevertheless, this approach is not devoid of inherent constraints, which
encompass the possibility of misconstruing information, cognitive biases, and the sway exerted
by external elements such as media portrayal.

26
In order to maintain the successful administration of justice, it is imperative for the legal system
to meticulously evaluate the admissibility, reliability, and interpretation of circumstantial
evidence. The judges fulfil a crucial function in providing guidance to the jury about the
assessment of the probative value of circumstantial evidence in relation to its possible
prejudicial impact. In addition, the dynamic nature of forensic science and technology presents
additional challenges in the assessment of circumstantial evidence.

This study underscores the necessity of using a sophisticated and well-informed methodology
for evaluating circumstantial evidence within the legal context. It is imperative for legal
professionals, researchers, and policymakers to consistently endeavour to achieve a harmonious
equilibrium between the inclusion of circumstantial evidence and the protection of the rights
and freedoms of the accused. Through this approach, the legal system may enhance its ability
to ensure the fair and transparent administration of justice, therefore respecting the
fundamental ideals upon which it is established.
.
 Similarity Report ID: oid:9832:46052579

20% Overall Similarity

Top sources found in the following databases:
18% Internet database 2% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
16% Submitted Works database

TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.

blog.ipleaders.in
1 4%
Internet

mynation.net
2 2%
Internet

latestlaws.com
3 1%
Internet

karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in
4 1%
Internet

patnahighcourt.gov.in
5 1%
Internet

ebin.pub
6 <1%
Internet

slideshare.net
7 <1%
Internet

National Law University New Delhi on 2014-11-06

8 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:9832:46052579

University of the Free State on 2022-08-29

9 <1%
Submitted works

latestlaws.com
10 <1%
Internet

srdlawnotes.com
11 <1%
Internet

lawctopus.com
12 <1%
Internet

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University on 2021-08-12

13 <1%
Submitted works

jajharkhand.in
14 <1%
Internet

drjohnhlychho.com
15 <1%
Internet

legalserviceindia.com
16 <1%
Internet

Institute of Technology, Nirma University on 2014-11-23

17 <1%
Submitted works

dyuthi.cusat.ac.in
18 <1%
Internet

thelogicalindian.com
19 <1%
Internet

amu.ac.in
20 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:9832:46052579

casemine.com
21 <1%
Internet

National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2009-12-16

22 <1%
Submitted works

University of South Dakota on 2023-11-03

23 <1%
Submitted works

pdffox.com
24 <1%
Internet

lawyersclubindia.com
25 <1%
Internet

Mid-America Christian University on 2023-05-15

26 <1%
Submitted works

National Law School of India University, Bangalore on 2009-12-16

27 <1%
Submitted works

pdfcoffee.com
28 <1%
Internet

Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh on 2023-05-19

29 <1%
Submitted works

GLA University on 2022-05-24

30 <1%
Submitted works

Jay Odenbaugh. "Values, Advocacy and Conservation Biology", Environ...

31 <1%
Crossref

docshare.tips
32 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:9832:46052579

lawhelpline.in
33 <1%
Internet

thefactfactor.com
34 <1%
Internet

Sources overview