How Far Circumstantial Evidence is Admissible to Conclusively Decide the Case

Section 2(1)(k) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam¹ “relevant”.—A fact is said to be relevant to another when it is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Adhiniyam relating to the relevancy of facts;

In India, the term “circumstantial evidence” was first used by James Stephens, who defined it as the facts that are relevant to other facts and whose existence can be proved/established by the existence of other facts. Circumstantial evidence is also called relevant facts or corroborating facts.

These are based on the principle of:-
“Men may lie but circumstances do not.”

Circumstantial evidence can be relied upon not for proving a fact directly but instead as pointing to its existence. In short, it is a form of corroborative evidence whereby each instance forms a link with the other, to form a complete chain.

Circumstantial evidence, hence, is known as ‘indirect evidence’, since it cannot independently prove a fact and has to be seen or deduced together with the help of related circumstances. Circumstantial evidence is thus largely reliant on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or ‘the thing speaks for itself.’

Principles of Circumstantial Evidence

• HANUMANT v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH²

The Supreme Court established the “Five Golden Principles of Circumstantial Evidence” or the “Panchsheel Guidelines” as guidelines to govern convictions based on circumstantial evidence. They have been stated below as follows:

1. It is crucial to carefully examine the conditions from which it is appropriate to infer the guilt of the accused.
2. The facts thus developed should be compatible only with the hypothesis of the defendant’s guilt, that is to say, under any other hypothesis they should not be explainable but that the defendant is guilty.
3. The circumstances should be strong enough and conclusive to draw a firm conclusion about the guilt of the accused.
4. The only theory that should be included is the one that needs to be confirmed. The rest should be omitted.
5. There must be a chain of evidence complete and must indicate that the accused must have done the act in all human likelihood.

The same has been reiterated in the leading case of SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA³

• ANWAR ALI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH⁴

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, in case of circumstantial evidence, 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. 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.

See also: Shruti Vora v. SEBI: Case Comment

Essentials of Circumstantial Evidence

According to C.J. Monir, circumstantial evidence must be both exclusive and decisive; the following are some of the essentials laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of;

• SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN⁵

The principles can be set out as under:-

1. The circumstances from which inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be conjointly or firmly established.
2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must 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.
4. The circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis, same as that of the guilt of the accused.

Evidentiary Value of Circumstantial Evidence

It is a popular misconception that circumstantial evidence carries less weight or importance than direct evidence. This is only partly true. While direct evidence is generally seen as more powerful, most successful prosecutions rely greatly on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence because it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

The law draws no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance. Either type of evidence may be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case.

Human agency may be faulty in expressing actual incidents with accuracy but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many times, it is aptly said that “men may tell lies, but circumstances do not”.

The convictions in the following two cases is solely based on the the circumstantial evidences:-

• SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (THROUGH CBI)⁶) (Priyadarshini Mattoo Case) The Hon’ble Supreme court awarded life imprisonment to the accused on the basis of certain pivotal facts (i.e. the DNA test report, broken helmet visor, injuries on the dead body etc.) which established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. These pivotal facts (relevant facts) formed a chain of circumstantial evidence so complete that it only led to the one hypothesis, i.e. the accused killed the victim.

• SIDHARTHA VASHIST @ MANU SHARMA v. STATE (NCT DELHI)⁷) (Jessica Lal Murder Case)

The court awarded him (accused) life imprisonment for the murder of Jessica Lal, on the grounds of circumstantial evidence. The conduct of the accused after the incident (absconding), ballistic report, presence at the scene of crime established by various testimonies and the circumstantial evidence connecting the vehicle and the cartridges during the commission of crime formed a chain of impenetrable evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. There is no inherent requirement to provide proof of motive, if the link between the accused and commission of the offence cannot be broken, it is immaterial to establish motive.

• BODH RAJ v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR⁸

Court held that circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis for conviction provided the conditions; as stated below are fully satisfied:

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 accused;
3. That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency ;

a. That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty , actually exclude every hypothesis except the one proposed to be proved.

The position as was held in the case of Bodh Raj was again reinstated in the following:

• UMEDBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT⁹)

It was held that in the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can serve as the sole basis for conviction.

Circumstantial Evidence and Corroboration

Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is used to support a theory of a sequence of events. The sum total of multiple pieces of corroborating evidence, each piece being circumstantial alone, build an argument to support how a particular event happened. In civil and criminal investigations, corroboration is often supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The circumstantial evidence being totally based on circumstances is necessarily required to be established by the prosecution only by way of corroborating circumstances surrounding the event or offence and thus viewed, corroboration is an integral part of such type of evidence i.e., circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial Evidence and Law Doctrines

Circumstantial evidence consists of certain key doctrines and laws that help further explain the concept. They are evaluated to examine the strength and admissibility of the evidence presented.

1. Last Seen Doctrine.

The last seen doctrine is a type of circumstantial evidence. It is not a conclusive form of evidence and hence, does not qualify to be used to establish guilt. To establish guilt using this particular doctrine, therefore, the surrounding circumstances must also be examined such that links can be formed between the various circumstances. There should be corroborative evidence for this doctrine to be acknowledged in court.

• NIRANJAN PANJA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL¹⁰)

The court held that the proximity between the time of death and the last seen together time is essential to establish the liability of the accused. The last seen doctrine shifts the onus onto the accused to establish their innocence.

2. Abnormal Conduct of Accused.

This is another form of circumstantial evidence. Identifying the abnormal conduct of the individual who has been accused is imperative in a dispute. However, this alone will not qualify as a ground for conviction. Like the last seen doctrine, this doctrine too requires corroborative evidence. Providing false alibis, inability to disclose the location, or any other type of information which destroys the ‘presumption of innocence’ amounts to abnormal conduct. This doctrine plays a key role in linking various circumstances to the principal fact.

3. Section 106 of the Evidence Act (now in Section 109 of BSA).

As mentioned earlier, the Indian Evidence Act does not define circumstantial evidence. Section 106 of the Act, however, gives a form of circumstantial evidence. According to this section, the individual under suspicion bears the burden of proving a fact of which they have special or exclusive knowledge. This too is a form of circumstantial evidence as it cannot prove the guilt of the accused. It requires the circumstances surrounding it to support it to establish it as a fact.

For example, in criminal law, the burden of proving innocence would be on the individual who found a body in their house. Similarly in the case of civil law, if an individual was unable to produce their ticket while traveling in a train, the onus lies on this individual to show that they had purchased a ticket and thus prove their innocence. If the individual is unable to establish their innocence satisfactorily, they will be convicted.

See also: Theories of ownership and comparison with possession

4. Expert Evidence.

The Act does not define ‘Expert Opinion’. Section 45 only defines ‘expert’ and states that an opinion by an expert is a relevant fact. The definition of ‘expert’ under Section 45 of the Act has been given a wide purview. It defines ‘expert’ as any person who possesses special knowledge and skills on a point of (a) foreign law, (b) science or art, (c) identity of handwriting or finger impressions. Here, no qualification has been provided with respect to who is a ‘specially skilled’ person, which gives the definition an ambiguous character.

What can be inferred from the above para is that a ‘specially skilled’ person can be one who has some professional experience, or has done special study in that subject area, or has gained technical knowledge in that area through a detailed observation. However, it must be proved by the person before the Court that he has the ‘adequate’ qualifications to be regarded as an expert in that particular field. In other words, the issue of whether a person is an expert is to be determined by a Judge on a case-by-case basis depending upon the facts of each case.

Conditions to be satisfied:-

There are two conditions, which must be satisfied before a Judge may admit an expert opinion. First, it needs to be shown that the subject matter of the case is such that it is necessary for an expert to render an opinion. Second, it must be shown that the person who is testifying is an expert.

Nature of expert evidence:-

It is important to note that expert testimony is only corroborative in nature. In other words, it is used as a supplement to the direct or ocular evidence in a case. Moreover, it is a mere advisory and thus, not binding on the Court. It is for these reasons that sole reliance on expert evidence is not sufficient to convict an accused. However, it is a mere rule of caution and not a rule of law.

Conclusion

In the realm of law, the foundation of justice in the judicial system is evidence, which gives rise to defensible judgments. Even though it is indirect, circumstantial evidence can be convincing when it creates a clear sequence of events that credibly supports a claim.

Legal precedents like Hanumant v. State of M.P, Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat and recently Laxman Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh emphasises the requirement for an unbroken chain of facts pointing only to the accused’s guilt. This form of evidence has evolved over time. These cases also highlight how crucial a perfect chain is to proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In contemporary legal practice, circumstantial evidence remains a valuable tool for achieving justice.

However, it must always be carefully examined to make sure there are no plausible alternative explanations or doubts. To preserve the rights of the accused and uphold the principles of equity and due process in the legal system, it is crucial to balance the significance and admissibility of evidence, particularly when it is circumstantial.

---

About Authors

Jatan Singh and Chitrangada Singh are Final Year Students at Faculty of Law Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India.

1. 2023 (47 of 23 [↩]
2. AIR 1952 SC 343 [↩]
3. 1984 AIR 1622 [↩]
4. 2021 (1) SCC (Cri) 395 [↩]
5. Criminal Appeal NO. 954 OF 2005 [↩]
6. SCC 747 (2010 [↩]
7. 6 SCC 1 (2010 [↩]
8. AIR 2002 SC 316 [↩]
9. AIR SC 424 (1978 [↩]
10. SCC 525 (2010 [↩]