Circumstantial Evidence: Circumstances Should Form Chain Indicating That Crime Was Committed By Accused And None...
The principle of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing to the accused as the perpetrator
Explanation:
1. Nature of Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the crime scene implying presence.
Unlike direct evidence (like eyewitness testimony), circumstantial evidence requires the court to draw reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.
2. Chain of Circumstances Must Be Complete
For a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
The chain of circumstances must be:
Complete and unbroken.
Such that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Any break or gap in the chain weakens the prosecution’s case.
3. Principles Governing Conviction on Circumstantial Evidence
The accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must lead to a conclusion of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Mere suspicion or possibility is not enough.
The court must be satisfied that no other inference but guilt can be drawn.
4. Judicial Caution
Courts exercise greater caution in relying solely on circumstantial evidence.
The entire set of facts must be consistent and cogent.
Any material contradiction or gap in circumstances leads to acquittal.
Relevant Case Laws:
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
Supreme Court laid down classic principles for circumstantial evidence:
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established.
The circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
They must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
2. Bali Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1955 SC 233
Held that when circumstantial evidence is used, the circumstances must be linked so firmly that there is no escape from the conclusion that the accused committed the offence.
3. Rex vs. Daniel, (1814) 3 M & S 257
Early English case that laid foundation of circumstantial evidence principles, stating the chain must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.
4. K.K. Verma vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 970
Circumstances must form a complete chain pointing towards the accused and exclude other possibilities.
5. Murlidhar Meghraj v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 722
Court stressed that mere presence at crime scene is insufficient unless linked with other incriminating circumstances forming a chain.
Summary:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Circumstantial Evidence | Indirect evidence based on inference from facts. |
| Complete Chain of Circumstances | Must be unbroken and lead only to guilt. |
| Exclusion of Other Hypotheses | All other reasonable explanations must be excluded. |
| Beyond Reasonable Doubt | Conviction must be based on conclusive proof. |
| Judicial Caution | Courts are careful and scrutinize circumstantial evidence thoroughly. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments