Circumstantial evidence

QUESTION

⚫ What is evidence? Explain the importance of

circumstantial evidence.
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

⚫ Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to decide the fate of

the accused by establishing his guilt or innocence through
reasoning.

⚫ According to Benthem, witnesses are the ‘eyes and ears of justice’.

⚫ But testimony of witnesses is not always credible. Therefore, facts are

provable not only through witnesses but also through
circumstances.

⚫ Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something

happened but is often useful as a guide for further investigation.

⚫ Circumstantial evidence also plays an important role in civil courts to

establish or deny liability.
 EVIDENCE
⚫ Evidence can directly or indirectly lead to the required conclusion
as to whether a disputed fact exists or not. Thus, evidence is
divided in to two: direct and circumstantial (indirect).

⚫ If believed, direct evidence establishes a fact in issue directly. A

fact in issue is something a party alleges to exist and the other
party denies this is the disputed fact, which can only be resolved
by the help of evidence.

⚫ Direct evidence is provided by witnesses giving oral

testimony of something they perceived with their own
senses. It is also afforded by the presentation of documents,
photographs and the like which the judge is required to interpret
with his senses and includes the physical presence of witness in
the witness box giving rise to an assessment by the judge of the
witness’s credibility. It can include any incriminating admissions
by a party in the case.
⚫ However, circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that
tends to establish a conclusion by inference.

⚫ It doesn't directly tell you or prove the existence or non-existence of

the alleged or disputed fact. But when you put them together, they
form a chain leading to a logical conclusion. For this reason,
criminal cases built entirely on circumstantial evidence are the most
difficult to prove the required standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

⚫ In Dharam Deo Yadav v/s State of UP – it was held that

circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which,
one can, by process of reasoning, infer about the existence
of facts in issue or factum probandum.
⚫ Circumstantial evidence requires the judge to draw
generalizations from commonly held
assumptions about human nature.

⚫ In a murder case for example, evidence that the

accused lied to the police about his where about of the
relevant time and had a violent argument with the victim
some days before the killing would constitute relevant
circumstantial evidence of the accused's guilt. The
inference is based on the common assumption that
murderers normally have a motive for committing
murder and will usually cover their tracks by lying.
⚫ Each and every incriminating circumstance must be
clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence
and the circumstances so 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.

⚫ Even when there are no eye witnesses to support the

criminal charge, but prosecution has been able to establish
the chain of circumstances which is complete, leading to
inference of guilt of accused and circumstances taken
collectively are incapable of explanation on any reasonable
hypothesis save the guilt sought to be proved, accused may
be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
⚫ In C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC
193, wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07,
para 21)
⚫ “21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully
proved and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete and there
should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.
Further, the proved circumstances must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence.”
 Can a wrong inference be made from
circumstances?

⚫ Since most of offences are being executed in a very

sophisticated manner, it is difficult to get direct evidence.
In such case, the option we have is, proving the disputed
fact by circumstantial evidence.

⚫ However, there is a possibility of making wrong

inferences from such circumstances. For instance, in a
murder case, if you consider the footsteps alone, it can
be the footsteps of any one from the victim's house. And
also it does not mean that anyone who buys pistol or
knife has an intention to kill a person.
⚫ Thus, circumstances should be taken cumulatively and
not in isolation of one from the other. Where the facts
are put together, they lead to a certain logical conclusion. The
circumstances should not be self-contradicting that is
some consistent with the innocence of the accused
and others consistent with his guilt. If they contradict,
their capacity to prove decreases with the increase of the
contradiction. That is why we have said that the court must be
careful when it gives a ruling on the basis of circumstantial
evidence.

⚫ Court should not cull out one circumstance from the rest to
give a different meaning to it – Gade Lakshmi Mangraju
alias Ramesh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh – AIR
2001 SC 2677.
 Whether circumstantial evidence can be the
sole basis of conviction?

⚫ Circumstantial evidence is not direct evidence, and

in this regard there have been popular
misconception 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
prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial
evidence, the advantage it has over direct evidence is
that it is more difficult to suppress or
fabricate circumstantial evidence.
⚫ In the following landmark judgment the judiciary has
ruled the important role played by circumstantial
evidence which later became the sole basis of conviction.

⚫ In Ramawati Devi vs State of Bihar it was held

that-“what evidentiary value or weight has to be
attached to such a statement, must 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….”
 Conditions for circumstantial evidence to be sole
basis for conviction

⚫ 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 satisfied.
⚫ Conditions are:
⚫ The circumstances from which guilt is established must be
fully proved;
⚫ That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused;
⚫ That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature
and tendency ;
⚫ That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually
exclude every hypothesis expect the one proposed to
be proved.
 State of UP v/s Hari Mohan and others

⚫ The Supreme Court has ruled that in a number of

cases where direct evidence is scanty,
circumstantial evidence, plays an important role.
A bench comprising justice K. T. Thomas and Justice R.P.
Sethi, in a criminal appeal in a murder case observed
that the trial court can convict an accused on the
basis of circumstantial evidence, furnished by
the prosecution, provided it was so complete as
to leave no doubt about the guilt of the accused.
To convict a person on the basis of circumstantial
evidence, all the circumstances, relied upon by the
prosecution must be clearly established. The apex
court, however, warned that the circumstantial
evidence should be consistent with the guilt of
the accused.
 Contd…

⚫ The judgment is a fallout of an appeal relating to the murder

of Roop Devi. She was married to Shyam Mohan in June
1973.
⚫ Devi's father, after receiving a letter from her on March 18,
1977, went to see her but was told by his son-in-law's elder
brother, Hari Mohan, that she died of cholera three days ago.
Suspecting foul play, the father lodged an FIR on March 20,
1997, and two days later, the body of his daughter bearing
bullet wounds was found in a gunny bag.
⚫ The trial court convicted Hari Mohan of murder charges and
sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court acquitted
him on appeal and the Uttar Pradesh government challenged
the High Court order before the apex court..
⚫ Allowing the appeal, the apex court said it had
consistently held that when the evidence against the
accused, particularly when charged with grave offences
like murder, consisted of only circumstances, it must be
qualitatively such that the guilt would be proven. Taking
into account
⚫ the strained relations between the deceased and her
in-laws due to demand of dowry,
⚫ the deceased woman's letter to her father that she
apprehended being killed by her in-laws,
⚫ gun shot heard on the date of her death, and
⚫ the licensed gun possessed by the accused, the bench
upheld the trial court verdict
 Last seen together theory

⚫ In cases where the accused was last seen with the deceased victim
(last seen together theory) just before the incident, it becomes the
duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the
death of the victim occurred. - Vide Nika Ram v.State of H.P. [(1972) 2
SCC 80 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 635 : AIR 1972 SC 2077] and Ganeshlal v. State
of Maharashtra [(1992) 3 SCC 106 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 435]

⚫ In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10

SCC 681 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 80] Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.
694, para 22) Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of
his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that
shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the
offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also
normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does
not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers
an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong
circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for
commission of the crime.”
⚫ Thus, the doctrine of “last seen together” shifts the burden of
proof on the accused, requiring him to explain how the incident had
occurred. Failure on the part of the accused to furnish any
explanation in this regard, would give rise to a very strong
presumption against him.

⚫ In another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravirala

Laxmaiah v. State of A.P., (2013) 9 SCC 283 it has been observed thus:-
It is a settled legal proposition that in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, where no eyewitness account is available, the principle is that:

⚫ “6. … when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said
accused either offers no explanation [for the same,] or offers an
explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes
an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it
complete.”
 Sarbir Singh vs. State of Punjab – 1993 Supp (3) SCC
41

⚫ The appellant and the deceased were intimate friends and they used
to visit frequently each other's house. But Paramjit Singh
(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') misbehaved with the
wife of the appellant and because of that the appellant had
nursed a grudge.

⚫ On July 8, 1979 in the morning the appellant asked the deceased to

accompany him to Chandigarh and Mohali where he wanted
to take some suitable shop for his business. They boarded a bus of
the Road Transport Corporation at Patiala for Chandigarh at about
9.59 A.M. Gurcharan Singh (PW-8) also came to Chandigarh by the
same bus. The appellant and the deceased reached Chandigarh at
about 11.30 A.M. and after staying there for some time they boarded
a local bus for Mohali. Gurdev Singh (PW- 23) accompanied them in
the bus from Chandigarh to Mohali. At Mohali after getting down
from the bus the appellant went to Raj Kumar Singh
(PW-711) brother of his wife and borrowed a bicycle from
him.
⚫ During this period the deceased was sitting at a shop and taking
aerated water. Shortly thereafter, the appellant arrived with the
bicycle at the said shop and both left on the bicycle.

⚫ The deceased was pedaling the bicycle and the appellant sat behind on
the carrier. Both were seen going on the bicycle by Jaimal Singh
(PW-5) by the side of the Gurdwara, Sahib Singh Sabha, Mohali.
Jaimal Singh (PW-5) after taking his meals went to Gurdwara Sahib Singh
Sabha at about 2.45 P.M. the same day.
⚫ One Om Parkash, came there and told him that a Sikh gentleman
was lying on the ground in the campus of the said Gurdwara in
an injured condition. Jaimal Singh (PW-5) accompanied by Balwinder
Singh, Sewadar, came to the spot and found the victim lying on the
ground and bleeding profusely. He identified him to be the same
person whom he had seen earlier on the bicycle.
⚫ The victim could not speak. Jaimal Singh (PW-5) left Om Parkash and Balwinder
Singh, Sewadar, at the spot and summoned members of the Gurdwara
Committee. Some of the members who were available reached. But in the
meantime the victim succumbed to the injuries. They searched for the
assailant. Thereafter Jaimal Singh (PW-5) accompanied by Chatter Singh went to the
Police Station Mohali and lodged the first information report at 4.00 P.M. the
same day.
⚫ It is further the case of the prosecution that near about the time of the
occurrence the appellant was seen coming from the side of the Gurdwara
Sahib Singh Sabha and was noticed on the way by Joginder Singh (PW-9) with
blood on his hand. On being asked the appellant gave out that he had a
fight with someone. and he was going to the hospital to get his injuries
dressed. Gurdev Singh (PW-23) on his way back from the hotel also saw the
appellant going on the bicycle and found him puzzled. He also saw the hand of the
appellant stained with blood and blood marks on his clothes as well. On query the
appellant said that he had got the injury through barbed wire and was
going to the doctor to get his wounds dressed. Last in the chain of events, the
appellant reached the house of Raj Kumar Singh (PW-11) and returned him his
bicycle.
⚫ It was held as follows :
⚫ "It is said that men lie but circumstances do not. Under the circumstances
prevailing in the society today, it is not true in many cases. Sometimes the
circumstances which are sought to be proved against the accused for purpose of
establishing the charge are planted by the elements hostile to the accused who find
out witnesses to fill up the gaps in the chain of circumstances. In countries having
sophisticated modes of investigation, every trace left behind by the culprit can be
followed and pursued immediately. Unfortunately it is not available in many parts of
this country. That is why the Courts have insisted
⚫ I. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the
first instance be fully established;
⚫ II. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
sought to be proved;
⚫ III. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature;
⚫ IV. The chain of evidence should not have any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused.
⚫ Held, According to us the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is clear,
unambiguous and in unmistakable terms establish that the appellant is the
perpetrator of the crime and nothing has been brought to our notice which leaves any
gap in the circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant.
⚫ In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. [1989 Supp (2) Supreme
706], the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the principle 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."
⚫ Hypothesis of the guilt:-
⚫ Circumstantial Evidence – Appreciation of – Circumstances must be
consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally
inconsistent with his innocence – Circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and circumstances must be
conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. Court should
not get swayed by emotional considerations - Balwinder Singh vs. State
of Punjab – AIR 1996 SC 607.

⚫ Circumstantial Evidence – Bride burning – All the circumstances must

conclusively established – If there is any break in the link of chain, accused
entitled for the benefit of doubt – Sarojini vs. State of M.P. – 1993
Supp (4) SCC 632

*****
 Assignment 1

⚫ Choose any case decided on the basis of

circumstantial evidence.
⚫ Identify the chain of circumstances and the various
kinds of evidence that has been relied upon to prove
the facts.