Nidhi Kulkarni, Renaissance Law College
INTRODUCTION
Even when the accused tries to remove all the incriminating evidence, many times circumstantial evidence remains and becomes the strongest form of evidence to render the accused as guilty. In the absence of any direct evidence, circumstantial evidence is what helps the judges to connect facts and impart justice in the case. In case no reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence there is a possibility of miscarriage of justice as many guilty accused might be acquitted because it is not necessary that direct evidence will be present in every case. The supreme court in its various precedents have laid down guidelines for conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence. The judiciary has not specifically stated which form of evidence is superior to the other. However, generally judges consider direct evidence to be more reliable because it ousts the possibility of presumptions. Circumstantial evidences when properly corroborated with other evidences forming a chain of events which is not broken can be said to be sufficient to form the sole basis of conviction. However, the judiciary has to be very prudent when convicting a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence. This is because it is difficult for the judges to satisfy themselves of the guilt of the accused in the absence of any direct evidence. Judges are very cautious in convicting an accused on circumstantial evidence because even if there is a minor possibility of innocence of the accused it would be wrong to convict him. Therefore there has to be absence of any reasonable possibility of innocence of the accused. That is, the accused should be held guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE VS DIRECT EVIDENCE
Evidence can be broadly divided into two sub categories –Direct evidence and Indirect or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness's personal knowledge or observation of that fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime may be proven by direct evidence if, standing alone, that evidence satisfies a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the person's guilt of that crime.[1]
Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from which a person may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.[2]
For instance if A gives a statement that he saw B murder C with a knife it is a direct evidence but if A contends that he heard B tell someone that he murdered C with a knife it would be circumstantial evidence because he did not personally witness the murder of C but heard a fact from which inference of guilt of accused may be drawn.
In most of the cases the accused tries all possible measures to remove direct evidence. In this scenario circumstantial evidence is what helps in a just adjudication. Many times even direct evidence such as eye witnesses can be false and manipulated. In this situation relying on circumstantial evidence is the only choice left.
Both circumstantial and direct evidence can be taken into account to render the accused as guilty. No distinction is made between the two with regards to weight or importance for conviction with the exception that circumstantial evidence should be properly established so as to complete a chain of events which points towards the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, a conviction will not be upset merely because the whole evidence is circumstantial[3]. However, a strict test is needed to ascertain whether the evidence is sufficient to convict.
WHEN CONVICTION CAN BE ON BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role in the conviction process. It is said that men and women may lie but circumstances do not lie[4]. In cases where there is dearth of primary evidences jurors have to rely on circumstantial evidence in order to adjudicate the case. The burden of proof also needs to be conclusively established. There is a generalized misconception that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to solely convict a person. However the Supreme court has time and time again laid down various precedents which proves the contrary.
The Supreme court of India in case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra[5] held that:
“Before a case against an accused vesting on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established the following conditions must be fulfilled as laid down in Hanumant Vs State of M.P. [1953] SCR 1091]
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 with the hypothesis of guilt and 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.
These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti.”
In another case[6] Supreme court of India relied on Sir Alfred Wills book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” to adjudicate. The chapter 6 of this book laid down the following rules to be observed in case of circumstantial evidence.
“ (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”
Similarly, the Supreme court of India has held[7] that “The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
Furthermore, in another case[8] concerning circumstantial evidence , it was held that “it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”
In the famous Jessica Lal murder case[9] the accused was convicted to life imprisonment on the ground of circumstantial evidence when the eye witnesses in the case turned hostile. The circumstantial evidence in this case formed a chain of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused.The facts considered were ballistic report, conduct of the accused subsequently (absconding), his presence at scene of crime established through testimonies and the evidence connecting the vehicles and cartridges to the accused - Manu Sharma.
In V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.)[10] it was observed that – "In most cases, it will be difficult to get direct evidence of an agreement to conspire 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.”
It was held in Ramwati v. State of Bihar that the evidentiary value must depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In some cases, a person can be convicted solely on the basis of dying declaration in the light of facts and circumstances of case.
Priyadarshani Matoo[11] is a very leading case of circumstantial evidence. In the case the accused stalked ,harassed and eventually raped and murder the victim.In this case there was no direct evidence present because of which the accused was acquitted by the trial judge but it was eventually overruled by the Delhi High court after convicting the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
In the case of Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir the Court held that for circumstantial evidence to be the sole basis of conviction, following requirements need to be met.
(i) “Circumstances from which guilt is established are required to be proved and impenetrable
(ii) Circumstances should be conclusive in nature and should form a link between the criminal and commission of the offence
(iii) Circumstances should retain moral certainty and there should be no scope for any other hypothesis.
(iv) All other hypothesis should be excluded except that one that is required to be proved”
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-WHEN INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT
The law has evolved through precedents on the point of circumstantial evidence It has been a settled principle that conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence require certain elements to be present so has been held in various cases such as stated above. In a case which is purely depended on circumstantial evidence it is necessary to establish that all circumstances are cogently established and that there is no missing link in the case. Any missing link gives rise to suspicion as to the innocence of the accused.
the Supreme Court in the case of Pohalya v. State of Maharashtra[12] held as follows- “it is a common ground that there is no direct evidence intimating the appellant. Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. As the case depends on circumstantial evidence, at the outset the well established principals governing the appreciation of evidence in a case dependent upon circumstantial evidence may be born in mind. Briefly the principals are that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence , that the circumstance relied upon must be such as cannot be explained or any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused ,in other words the circumstances must be often incriminating character. All the proof circumstance must provide a complete change, no link in which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence.”
When the case of circumstantial evidence cannot adhere to this standard of proof the conviction of accused becomes difficult.
In the case of Kailash v. State of U.P[13]., the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused which was given on the ground of extrajudicial confession of the accused after 20 days of the commission of a crime. The court found the confession to be doubtful and thus acquitted the accused.
In the case of Joga Gola v.State of Gujrat [14]it was held that “Based solely on the circumstance of the accused to be seen with the buffalo of the deceased could not be enough proof to convict him for murder of the victim”
Similarly in Kuleshwar v. State of U.P [15]it was observed that “In a case where there is no evidence to prove exactly the circumstances in which the victim sustained injuries, the accused cannot be convicted”
It was observed in another case[16] that merely because the accused and victim were last seen together is not sufficient for conviction.It was held that“ Though it is ordinarily believed that when a person is accused of committing murder of another, the fact that the accused and the deceased were last seen together in company of each other and the failure of the accused to satisfactorily account for the disappearance of the deceased is considered a circumstance of an incriminating character. But that itself is not sufficient unless the same is established beyond reasonable doubt that accused must have caused the death of the deceased”
In the case of Jagta v. State of Haryana[17] it was found that when the accused cannot give a reliable explanation with regards to the injuries sustained by him and the fact that he was present at the crime scene is insufficient to convict him.
EXCLUSION OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY DIRECT EVIDENCE
Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence generally stand on the same footing but many times court prefer direct evidence in a case as it leaves no space for inference and is more conclusive. It is generally the rule that evidence of circumstantial nature is only resorted to when it becomes impossible to attain direct evidence in a case. But as of rule, all admissible evidence can form a basis for conviction thus as long as circumstantial evidence is sufficiently corroborated and forms a chain which undoubtedly points towards the guilt of the accused excluding any possibility of innocence. Thus, circumstantial evidence is no longer excluded by direct, and even in criminal cases, the corpus delicti may generally be established by either species or, indeed, by the defendant’s mere admissions out of court[18].
In a far-flung place, where much of experience and efficiency is not expected, the lacuna of not getting the knife and clothes recovered from the accused, examined by the chemical examiner, is of no consequence in view of the overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence[19]
No form of evidence can be perfect.Even when direct evidence is taken,there is still the risk of it being false and manipulated which can lead to an unfair judgement.The courts have thus recognized that merely because direct evidence is absent it does not render circumstantial evidence inadmissible. Circumstantial evidence when properly corroborated can have the same probative value as that of direct evidence.
LAST SEEN THEORY
The Doctrine of last scene together has been very prominent in many adjudications. This is very pertinent remedy for the prosecution to establish guilt of the accused in the absence of any direct evidence. Generally the burden of proof is on the one who asserts but this doctrine shifts the onus of proof on the accused to establish his innocence. The complexity of cases have led to the evolution of this theory in cases based on circumstantial evidence.The last seen theory does not independently and conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused but it does the job of raising suspicion in a case and can be used with corroboration to convict the accused.
In the case of Rishipal v. State of Uttarakhand, the court discussed the principles of law governing the field. However, the court sounded few note of caution by referring to its precedent as under:
(i) The solitary circumstance of the accused and victim being last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances for the Court to record a finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. No conviction on that basis alone can, therefore, be founded.[20]
(ii) That it is not possible to convict Appellant solely on basis of ‘last seen’ evidence in the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court gave benefit of doubt to accused persons[21]
CONCLUSION
All cases consists of facts which are either proved or disproved by evidence and all this evidence holds different probative value. This evidence is scrutinized by the judges to form a decision with regard to its admissibility in the case. Its admissibility varies with the circumstances of each case. Circumstantial evidence is a very important form of evidence and thus holds a very integral position in the Indian Evidence Act. This is because most crimes are committed in secrecy and it becomes a tough task for the investigating agency to find evidence let alone direct evidence. Thus circumstantial evidence becomes a ray of hope to impart justice in absence of direct evidence. It would be incorrect to state that circumstantial evidence is a weak type of evidence. When used with caution circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to form the sole basis of conviction. But for that circumstantial evidence should fulfil the required elements as laid down in various cases which are also stated above. These elements are strictly adhered to when deciding any case based on circumstantial evidence. It is carefully analysed by the judges before making any decision because even a tiny mistake can lead to miscarriage of justice by convicting an innocent or acquitting a guilty person. It is very difficult for circumstances to complete all the elements and it becomes a tedious task for the juror to fulfill all the requirements as to admissibility of circumstantial evidence.
Our judicial system is based on the presumption that accused is guilty until proven innocent. This is so that no suspect is wrongfully convicted which is why the criminal cases have a very high standard of burden of proof. Circumstantial evidence may be presumptive evidence but it would wrong to question its utility just based on that. Even though circumstantial evidence is an indirect form of evidence still it can play a very pivotal role in cases.Circumstantial evidences acts as a missing link in the case.When properly corroborated circumstancial evidence helps to reduce any doubt or suspicion by reinforcing facts which is not possible in case of direct evidence.
[1] People v Bretagna, 298 N.Y. 323, 325 (1949). [2] People v Bretagna, supra [3] United States v. Johns, 26 Fed. Cas. 616, No. 15481 (C.C. Pa. 1806) [4] 1993 Cri LJ 1395 [5] Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra1985 SCR(1) 88 [6] Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.- 575 of 2007 [7] Gambhir v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1982 SC 1157 (1159) [8] People v Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024 (1984) [9] Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) Criminal appeal no.179 of 2007 [10] 1980 AIR 1382, 1980 SCR (3) 500 [11] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2007 [12] AIR 2979 SC 1949, 1970 Cr LJ 1310, para 5. [13] AIR 1980 SC 1124 [14] AIR 1982 SC 1227 [15] AIR 1980 SC 1534 [16] Lakhanpal v. State of M.P (AIR 1979 SC 1620) [17] 1974 AIR 1545 [18] iPhipson, Evidence, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, United Kingdom, 13thedn, page 70, para 504 ; Re Maya Baswa AIR1950 Mad 452, (1950) 1 MLJ 428 [19] Akbar Shah v. State(1965) 2 Cr. LJ 771, AIR 1965 J&K 126, 127 [20] Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372. [21] Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 438
Comments