Circumstantial Evidence : Realm of Reality

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to decide the fate of accused by establishing
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
by witnesses but also by circumstances.

In words of Stephen Leacock”,

“My evidence for this assertion is all indirect, it’s what we call circumstantial evidence the same
the people are hang for……”. Giving the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases
and discussing the present role of circumstantial evidence, in nailing the two most leading cases,
of Manu Sharma and Santosh Kumar, the same evidence that the trial court had dismissed as
being insufficient or inadequate for conviction. Although it seems self-evident, that meaning of
evidence must be articulated first, before the next steps in the analytical process may be pursued.

Historical Background of Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened but it is often
useful as a guide for further investigation. An example from genealogy would be that if census
records showed several people with the same surname lived at the same address, likely
relationships could be inferred from age and gender. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal
courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil
courts to establish or or deny liability

Analysis of the term Evidence

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, 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”

Analysis of the Term “Circumstantial Evidence”

Television show lawyers speak a lot about "circumstantial evidence". "Circumstantial evidence"
however is not so much a type of evidence as it is a
logical principle of deduction. Deduction is reasoning from general known principles to a
specific proposition

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.

An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged
offense. If someone were charged with theft of money, and were then seen in a shopping spree
purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be regarded as circumstantial evidence of
the individual's guilt. Similarly if a witness arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a
gunshot to find someone standing over a corpse and holding a smoking pistol, the evidence is
circumstantial, since the person may merely be a bystander who picked up the weapon after the
killer dropped it. The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is
false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that
sufficiently links criminal and crime.
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 English Law

According to Stephens the word “evidence” is used in three senses
1) words uttered, and thing exhibited in Court,
2) facts proved by those words or things , which are regarded as ground word of inference as to
other facts not so proved, and
3) relevancy of a particular fact to matter under inquiry

Evidence as per Indian law

Section 3 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.

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”
a) a confession or the statement of one accessed under Section 342,CrP.C
b) demeanor of witness(section 361, Cr.P.C ,O18,R,12,C.P.C)
c)local investigation or inspection (O.26,R,9);(O18,R18,C.P.C;sections 293 , 539B,CrP.C )
d) Facts judicially noticeable without proof (Section 56 ,57 Act)
e) Material objects(Section60)
Further coming to the subject, English text writers has divide evidence into

a) Direct evidence
b) Indirect and circumstantial 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
Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a
theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between
direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions (the
immature, incompetent, or ), nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence, and
try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely"
or "knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes
for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive
damages.

Circumstantial Evidence: Soul Basis Of Conviction

Ordinarily circumstantial eidence cannot be regarded as direct evidence,and with this regard ,
there have been 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.

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:-
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 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.

Similary in Priyadharshani Matto case

'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

Supreme court uses circumstantial evidence as best evidence:

Suprem Court of India in Manivel and Others v State of Tamil Nadu in Criminal Appeal
No. 473 of 2001 (2008 INDLAW SC 1239) on 08 Aug 2008 held that while dealing with
circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain
is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea.
The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on
circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
They are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
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.

Extracts from the judgement

It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the
guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1977 Indlaw RAJ 17; Eradu
and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad 1955 Indlaw SC 108; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka 1983
Indlaw SC 161; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. 1985 Indlaw SC 71; Balwinder Singh v. State
of Punjab 1986 Indlaw SC 35; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. 1989 Indlaw SC 443.

The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab 1954
Indlaw SC 188, it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the
innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State
of A.P. 1996 Indlaw SC 3059, wherein it has been observed thus:
"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....".

In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. 1989 Indlaw SC 31, it was laid down 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." *

In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 CrLJ 1104, it was pointed out that great care
must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably
capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed
out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the
cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
guilt.

Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down
the following rules specially to be observed in the 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". 13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on
circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch- stone of law relating to
circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.

In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh,1952 Indlaw SC 89,
wherein it was observed thus.
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be
fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In
other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State

of Maharashtra, 1984 Indlaw SC 432. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has
been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity
of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in
the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be
fully established. They are:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of 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 aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 Indlaw SC 630, State of
Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 Indlaw SC 807 and Kusuma Ankama Rao v State
of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of on 7.7.2008)

So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is necessary to take note of two decisions of this
court. In State of U.P. v. Satish 2005 Indlaw SC 83 it was noted as follows:

The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small
that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last
seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in
between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and
the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in
those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen
together by witnesses PWs. 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of PW-2."

In Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P. 2006 (10) SCC 172 it was noted as follows:
The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time
when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so
small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration".

A similar view was also taken in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab 2005 (12) SCC 438 and Kusuma
Ankama Rao's case (supra).

Conclusion
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

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - THE BEST EVIDENCE