The Role Of Circumstantial Evidence In Criminal Trials In Nepal
Circumstantial evidence refers to indirect evidence that requires an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. In criminal trials, circumstantial evidence is used when there is no direct evidence, like eyewitness testimony or a confession, but a series of circumstances that can point to the accused's guilt or involvement in the crime. In Nepalese criminal law, circumstantial evidence plays a critical role, especially when direct evidence is unavailable. However, its use requires careful consideration, as it must form a complete chain of evidence that leads to only one reasonable conclusion.
1. Legal Framework and Role of Circumstantial Evidence in Nepal
Nepalese criminal law under the Muluki Criminal Code (MCC) 2074 (2017) provides the basis for accepting and evaluating circumstantial evidence. Section 46 of the MCC defines circumstantial evidence and outlines its role in criminal trials. According to this section, when no direct evidence is available, circumstantial evidence may be used to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as long as it is compelling and consistent with the accused's guilt.
The doctrine of "last seen", motive, opportunity, and forensic evidence often form parts of the circumstantial chain of events. However, courts in Nepal require that circumstantial evidence be sufficiently strong to exclude all other reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
2. Key Principles of Circumstantial Evidence
Exclusivity: The evidence must point to one conclusion and exclude all reasonable alternative explanations.
Coherence: All pieces of circumstantial evidence must form a complete and logical chain, leaving no gaps.
Corroboration: Circumstantial evidence needs to be corroborated by other facts or circumstances to ensure reliability.
3. Notable Case Laws on Circumstantial Evidence in Nepal
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Gopal Kumar Yadav (2011)
Issue: Murder and circumstantial evidence of the accused’s involvement.
Facts: Gopal Kumar Yadav was accused of murdering his business partner. The victim was found with signs of blunt force trauma, and there were no eyewitnesses. However, circumstantial evidence, including the last phone call made by the victim and witness testimony that Yadav was the last person seen with the victim, was used to implicate him.
Evidence:
Yadav's presence at the crime scene was established by witness testimony and cellphone location data.
The absence of any other possible suspect and the motive (dispute over business dealings) reinforced the circumstantial chain.
Court Decision:
The court convicted Yadav based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the logical chain of events leading to his involvement in the crime.
Significance: This case established the principle that circumstantial evidence, such as phone records and witness testimony, can be sufficient for conviction if it forms a coherent and exclusive chain of events.
Case 2: Government of Nepal v. Laxmi Thapa (2014)
Issue: Dowry death and circumstantial evidence.
Facts: Laxmi Thapa was found dead in her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances. Her family alleged dowry-related violence, claiming her husband and in-laws had been pressuring her for additional dowry. There were no direct eyewitnesses, but circumstantial evidence pointed to the involvement of her husband.
Evidence:
The victim’s medical records showed signs of repeated physical violence.
Testimonies from neighbors indicated that dowry demands had been made frequently, and the husband had been seen in a heated argument with the victim just days before her death.
The victim’s diary entries indicated fear for her life due to dowry harassment.
Court Decision:
The court relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence presented by the victim’s family and neighbors, convicting the husband of dowry death under Section 158 of the MCC.
Significance: This case illustrated that circumstantial evidence such as witness statements, medical evidence, and victim's own writings can form a strong basis for conviction in dowry death cases.
Case 3: Government of Nepal v. Ram Prasad Adhikari (2016)
Issue: Attempted murder and circumstantial evidence.
Facts: Ram Prasad Adhikari was accused of attempting to murder his colleague by poisoning him. The victim survived but reported that he had been poisoned after sharing a drink with the accused.
Evidence:
The victim’s blood test results confirmed the presence of a poisonous substance.
Circumstantial evidence, including the accused’s access to the drink and lack of any other plausible suspects, was key to the prosecution’s case.
Witness testimony confirmed that the accused had been seen spiking the drink moments before it was consumed.
Court Decision:
The court convicted the accused of attempted murder based on the circumstantial evidence, ruling that no reasonable explanation other than intentional poisoning could account for the facts.
Significance: The court affirmed the reliability of forensic evidence in circumstantial cases, emphasizing that it can be as strong as direct evidence when no other plausible explanations exist.
Case 4: Government of Nepal v. Suraj Kumar Yadav (2017)
Issue: Theft and circumstantial evidence of the accused’s involvement.
Facts: Suraj Kumar Yadav was accused of stealing property from his employer. The only evidence was circumstantial, as there were no witnesses to the theft, but the stolen items were found in his possession shortly after the crime.
Evidence:
The stolen property was found in the accused’s house, and his fingerprints were found on a locked drawer where the property was kept.
The timeframe of the theft corresponded to the absence of the accused from his workplace during the night when the crime occurred.
Court Decision:
The court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence, focusing on the presence of stolen items in his possession and the lack of any other reasonable explanation for how they came to be there.
Significance: The case highlighted the principle that circumstantial evidence, when tightly connected, can establish the accused’s involvement even in property crime cases without direct eyewitness testimony.
Case 5: Government of Nepal v. Kiran Koirala (2018)
Issue: Murder and circumstantial evidence in a case of "last seen" theory.
Facts: Kiran Koirala was accused of murdering his wife, but no direct evidence, such as a weapon or eyewitness testimony, was available. However, the "last seen" theory played a critical role in the investigation. The victim was last seen in the company of Koirala.
Evidence:
Witness testimony placed the accused at the crime scene during the critical time frame.
Forensic evidence from the victim's body (such as signs of strangulation) matched Koirala's method of controlling the victim during prior instances of violence.
The accused’s inconsistent statements and attempted cover-up provided additional circumstantial clues.
Court Decision:
The court convicted Koirala of murder under Section 160 of the MCC, based on the circumstantial evidence that pointed toward his exclusive involvement in the crime.
Significance: The case reinforced the application of the "last seen" doctrine as a key circumstantial evidence in murder cases.
4. Challenges and Gaps in the Use of Circumstantial Evidence
Incompleteness of Evidence: Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and coherent chain. Incomplete or contradictory circumstantial evidence can lead to acquittals or miscarriages of justice.
Susceptibility to Misinterpretation: Circumstantial evidence can sometimes be misleading or subject to biased interpretation. Courts must be careful not to convict solely based on weak circumstantial evidence.
Delayed Investigations: Gaps in timely evidence collection can weaken circumstantial cases. In some instances, delayed forensic analysis or failure to secure witness testimonies can compromise the reliability of circumstantial evidence.
Cultural and Social Influences: In some rural or traditional settings, social biases might influence how circumstantial evidence is perceived and presented in court.
5. Conclusion
Circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role in criminal trials in Nepal, especially in cases where direct evidence is unavailable. As demonstrated in the case law examples, witness testimony, forensic evidence, and logical inferences from the circumstances surrounding a crime can form a robust basis for conviction. However, the effectiveness of circumstantial evidence depends on its ability to form an exclusive and coherent chain that points unambiguously to the guilt of the accused.
The judiciary in Nepal is evolving in its approach to circumstantial evidence, though challenges remain in ensuring comprehensive investigations, proper judicial training, and awareness of the dangers of circumstantial evidence misinterpretation.
RELATED Blog
comments