Circumstantial Evidence

Brief by Gautam Law Chamber

The constitutionality of convictions based on circumstantial evidence has always been under scrutiny and yet several convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. This makes a reader wonder regarding the legality of such convictions and the principles governing them. For a lawful conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it must be based on corroborated circumstantial evidence which forms a complete and unbroken chain of evidence. The circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and must not support the hypothesis of his innocence. The principles governing such convictions has been developed through various precedents evolved through judicial interpretation of cases. The aim of convictions based on circumstantial evidence is not to infringe the right to fair trial guaranteed to the accused under the Constitution of India, but it is to deliver justice to the victim when the guilt of the accused is well established. Our judiciary has made sure to balance the rights of the accused and the plaintiff in such cases. A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence is possible, but the prosecution must present evidence that forms a complete and unbroken chain, pointing conclusively to the defendant’s guilt and excluding any other reasonable hypothesis. Circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused in legal proceedings. While direct evidence directly proves a fact, circumstantial evidence relies on inference and the logical connection between presented facts to establish guilt. Circumstantial evidence is a form of evidence that indirectly suggests the likelihood of a fact or event without directly proving it. Unlike direct evidence, which involves direct observation or testimony about the fact in question, circumstantial evidence relies on inferences to establish a conclusion.

Here’s a more detailed explanation:

• What is Circumstantial Evidence?

Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence, suggests a fact is true but doesn’t prove it directly. It relies on inferences and reasoning to establish guilt or innocence. Insofar as the present case is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant did not lay much stress on commuting the death sentence to one of life imprisonment only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence on record. Therefore, we need not examine the nature of the crime and other factors or detain ourselves in this regard. We have referred to the various decisions cited by learned counsel only for completeness of the record and to reaffirm the view that ordinarily death sentence should not be awarded in a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

• Admissibility and Use:

Circumstantial evidence is admissible in criminal trials, and a defendant can be convicted based solely on it. The plea that in a case of circumstantial evidence death should not be awarded is without any logic. If the circumstantial evidence is found to be of unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of the accused, that forms the foundation for conviction. That has nothing to do with the question of sentence as has been observed by this Court in various cases while awarding death sentence. The mitigating circumstances and the aggravating circumstances have to be balanced. In the balance sheet of such circumstances, the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence has no role to play. In fact in most of the cases where death sentences are awarded for rape and murder and the like, there is practically no scope for having an eyewitness. They are not committed in the public view. But the very nature of things in such cases, the available evidence is circumstantial evidence. If the said evidence has been found to be credible, cogent and trustworthy for the purpose of recording conviction, to treat that evidence as a mitigating circumstance, would amount to consideration of an irrelevant aspect. The plea of the learned amicus curiae that the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the death sentence should not be awarded is clearly unsustainable.” The use of circumstantial evidence in legal proceedings comes with certain challenges and the potential for misinterpretation. In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, there may be multiple possible inferences that can be drawn from the same set of circumstances. The challenge is to ensure that the chosen inference is the most reasonable and consistent with guilt. If the chain of circumstances is incomplete or if there are gaps in the evidence, misinterpretation becomes more likely. A failure to establish a complete and unbroken chain may lead to incorrect conclusions. Circumstantial evidence may lack direct corroboration, making it essential to ensure that each piece of evidence is individually strong and that the cumulative effect is convincing. Without proper corroboration, misinterpretation is more likely. One of the key principles in evaluating circumstantial evidence is the need to exclude reasonable alternative hypotheses. If the prosecution fails to do so, misinterpretation may occur.

• Requirements for a Conviction:

• • Complete and Unbroken Chain: The prosecution must present evidence that forms a complete and unbroken chain, linking the defendant to the crime.

• • Exclusive Hypothesis: The circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the defendant’s guilt and must not support any other reasonable explanation.

• • Firmly Established: The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought must be firmly established.

• • Unerringly Pointing Towards Guilt: The circumstances must be of a definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

• • Excluding Innocence: The circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved (the defendant’s guilt).

• Examples:

• • Presence at the Scene: The defendant was present at the scene of the crime.

• • Possession of Stolen Property: The defendant was found in possession of stolen property.

• • Behavior Around the Time of the Crime: The defendant’s behavior around the time of the crime might be circumstantial evidence.

• Importance of Corroboration:

In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution often relies on corroborating evidence to strengthen the case.

The Court referred to the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be clearly established, and the cumulative effect should lead to the only conclusion of guilt. The court highlighted the need for caution in relying on motives, emphasizing that the absence of a proven motive does not necessarily absolve the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of complete chain of events and exclusion of alternative hypotheses. Therefore, the Court, after careful consideration of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, acquitted the accused. The judgment underscored the importance of establishing each circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt and cautioned against over-reliance on motives. This case remains a significant precedent in the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof required for conviction in such cases. 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 the present case the courts below have overlooked these settled principles and allowed suspicion to take the place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence. Now, we have to consider whether the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High court can be sustained in law. As noticed above, the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the Accused committing murder of the deceased. While dealing with the said conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the Accused, which would mean that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the chain of event is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court. Admittedly, the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the accused committing murder of the deceased. While dealing with the said conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused, which would mean that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the chain of event is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court. 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 the present case the courts below have overlooked these settled principles and allowed suspicion to take the place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence.” There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete as not to have any substantial doubt in the mind of the court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion which is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility is that the accused has committed the crime.

Conclusion:

Circumstantial evidence is an indirect form of evidence that proves a series of events establishing the guilt or innocence of the accused provided that the chain of circumstances is complete and unbroken, probability of any alternative hypothesis is negated and the guilt of the accused is proved beyond doubt. While dealing with circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to provide caution while drawing inferences in absence of direct evidence such as a witness testimony. The general use of circumstantial evidence is to corroborate the direct evidences presented in the Court. To reduce the risk of wrongful conventions resulting in miscarriage of justice, the legal system emphasizes the importance of thorough investigation, careful presentation of evidence, judicial instructions, and adherence to established legal principles. Courts play a crucial role in ensuring that circumstantial evidence is analyzed objectively, that alternative hypotheses are considered, and that the burden of proof is met beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges must exercise caution to minimize the risk of misinterpretation and uphold the principles of justice. It is also important to note that circumstantial evidence should not be the sole basis of conviction in absence of direct evidence to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions.