DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

2017-2018

Subject: LAW OF EVIDENCE

Project on:

ROLE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL

PROCEEDINGS

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. Vipil Vinod Vandana Verma

Assistant Professor Roll No. - 161, Sec.- 'B'

Law of Evidence B.A. LLB (Hons.), Sem. - V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
i
Firstly, I would like to thank my law of evidence teacher, Mr. Vipul Vinod as not only he
guided me in choosing my topic and helping me with the project, but he imparted us with all
the necessary and crucial information required to understand the subject. He with his supreme
patience and style of teaching introduced us to the subject.

I would also like to thank our Hon’ble Vice Chancellor sir for providing our institute with all
the facilities which are required for the completion of this project.

Last but not the least, I would thank my classmates for their support, which helped me
endeavour.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................01

ESSENTIALS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENC…….....................................................02

PROOF OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE…..................................................................03

VALUE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE……….........................................................03

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: SOUL BASIS OF CONVICTION…………………….04

CONVICTION WHEN PROVED BEYOND THE REASONABLE DOUBT……………..05

THE LAST SEEN THEORY…………………………………………………………….......06

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND BENEFIT OF DUBT……………………………07

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................08

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................09

iii
 INTRODUCTION

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. Circumstantial evidence is not
considered to be proof that something happened but it is often useful as a guide for further
investigation. 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.

An example of circumstantial evidence is the behaviour 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.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of
intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. In
dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion
lingering on mind may take place of proof. Suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to
take place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures
and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. However, it is not derogation of evidence to
say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual
incident, but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times it is aptly said that “men
may tell lies, but circumstances do not”.

In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact
sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle, a
distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference
of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has
to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact. If that fact is
proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person
should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of
doubt applies. The court has to consider the evidence and decide whether that evidence
proves a particular fact or not and if that leads to the inference of guilt of the accused or not.
In dealing with the latter question, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies. Primary facts are
proved or disproved as these expressions are defined in Sec. 3 of the Evidence Act.

ESSENTIALS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

1
The Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to circumstantial evidence has observed the
following:1 It is well established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the
circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the
guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstances which may reasonably be
considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial
evidence, the court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in
a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may prove fatal to the
prosecution case.

There essentials of Circumstantial Evidence which can be inferred from various decisions of
the Supreme Court on circumstantial evidence:

 The facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence
must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It if conviction rests solely on
circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for
the accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as
not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused2
 All the links in the golden chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
and they exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused3
 The inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and is
incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis except his guilt4

Further it relates to various circumstances which are associated with the real point in issue in
such a way to help the court in coming to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence
of facts in issue. Circumstantial evidence must show positive inference of guilt. 5 Thus,
circumstantial evidence does not prove the point in question directly, but establishes it only
by inference.6 Thus, if there is no eye-witness to a murder, the fact that A had the motive to
murder B or A has been seen running away with a blood-stained knife from B’s room where
B was found dead immediately after B’s cries were heard would be circumstantial evidence
as against A. If the evidence relates to a relevant fact, it is indirect or circumstantial.

PROOF OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

1
Umedhbai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1978 SC 424, Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa AIR 1995 SC 1387
2
Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 74
3
State of U. P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, 1992 Cr LJ 3693
4
Musheer Khan v. State of M.P. AIR 2010 SC 762.
5
Ibid.
6
Gade Lakshmi Mangraju v. State of Kar AIR 2007 SC 1355

2
There are four ingredients that are essential to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence:7

 The circumstance from which the guilt is established should be proven;

 That each one the facts should be according to the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused;
 That the circumstances should be conclusive in nature and tendency;
 That the circumstances ought to, to an ethical certainty, truly exclude each hypothesis
except the one projected to be evidenced.
 The evidence should prove the guilt of the culprit beyond a reasonable doubt.8

Similarly in the case of Bodh Raj vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir9:

 The circumstances from where conclusion of guilt is to be drawn ought to be

established. The circumstances involved ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’
established.
 The facts, therefore, established ought to be as per the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused.
 Circumstances ought to be conclusive in nature and tendency.
 They ought to exclude each attainable hypothesis except the one to be tested.
 There should be a complete sequence of proof so as to not leave any affordable
ground for the conclusion in line with the innocence of the defendant and should show
that the act must have been done by the defendant.

VALUE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Ordinarily, circumstantial evidence cannot be regarded as satisfactory as direct evidence. The

chain of circumstances may lead to particular inferences and the relation to true facts may be
more apparent than real. Hence, such evidence must be used with caution. Where the
circumstantial evidence only showed that the accused and deceased were seen together the
previous night, it was held to be not sufficient.10

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: SOUL BASIS OF CONVICTION

7
State of UP vs. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045
8
Rudra Rishee and Shubham Aparajita, Evidence: Its Role and Kinds, International Journal of Law and Legal
Jurisprudence Studies, ISSN 2348-8212, Vol 2 Issue 7, (Sep. 08, 2017, 09:04 PM ),

http://ijlljs.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/241.pdf

9
AIR 2002 SC 316
10
Prem Thakur v. State of Pun. AIR 1983 SC 61

3
Ordinarily circumstantial evidence 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.11

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 Ramavati Devi v. State of Bihar12 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 v. State13 “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 Case14 “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.”

CONVICTION WHEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

11
Ray Sudershini, Circumstantial Evidence, Legal Service India, (Sep. 08, 2017, 10:15 PM ),
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l136-Circumstantial-Evidence.html

12
AIR 1983 SC 16
13
1980 AIR 1382
14
IBID 14

4
An accused can be convicted for an offence on the basis of circumstantial evidence only if it
is proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court has ruled while acquitting a man
sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. "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." A bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and G S Singhvi observed in the case of
Roop Singh @ Rupa v. The State of Punjab 15 “Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any
other person.”
The cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the
accused and prove the offence beyond any reasonable doubt, the apex court said, while
acquitting Roop Singh alias Rupa sentenced to life in a murder case. Singh had appealed in
the apex court challenging the life sentence imposed by a sessions court in Punjab which was
affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in connection with the murder of Jarnail
Singh at Kotla on April 10, 2001. Two other co-accuseds sentenced to life by the sessions
court were, however, acquitted by the High Court.

The conviction of Roop Singh by the sessions court was based on circumstantial evidence
like detection of his left foot print on the murder spot and his finger print on the bottle of
liquor which was found near the crime spot and the appellant. His extra judicial confession
before three locals who claimed to have seen all the three accused persons together was also
used as evidence against him.

While upholding Roop Singh's appeal, the apex court recalled a number of its earlier rulings
and said 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.

"There was no evidence led by the prosecution to show that the prints in question came into
existence at the time the alleged incident took place," the apex court said while ordering the
release of Singh.16

(Decided on 20.06.2008), Manupatra, ( Sept. 14, 2017, 07: 21 PM)

15

http://www.manupatra.com/roundup/234/judgments.html

16
Conviction only If Circumstantial Evidence Beyond Doubt: SC, India today in, ( Sept. 14, 2017, 07: 55 PM)
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Conviction+only+if+circumstantial+evidence+beyond+doubt:
+SC/1/10215.html

5
 THE LAST SEEN THEORY

The last-seen theory 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 courts should look for some corroboration.”

In Case of State of U.P. v. Satish17, with regard to last-seen theory following was held “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.”

The other cases of Supreme Court based on last-seen theory are:

Finally in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab 18, this Court held that “it is not possible to convict
Appellant solely on basis of ‘last seen’ evidence in the absence of any other links in the chain
of circumstantial evidence, the Court gave benefit of doubt to accused persons.”

In State of Karnataka v. Chand Basha,19 The prosecution story relies upon the ‘last seen
together’ theory, which resulted into the death of Ganesh. This Court has time and again laid
down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove the ‘last seen together’
theory. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has
been committed or not, may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. However,
while doing so, it must be borne in mind that close proximity between the last seen evidence
and death should be clearly established. Yet, the prosecution has failed to prove the evidence
which establishes the ‘last seen together’ theory beyond reasonable doubt.

CIRUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND BENEFIT OF DOUBT

17
Appeal (crl.)  256-257 of 2005
18
(2005) 12 SCC 438
19
(2016) 1SCC 501

6
Usually, in a case based on circumstantial evidence the court looks for a cogent narrative
pointing to guilt, and will not treat suspicion as proof. Only reasonable doubt favours accused
but not all doubts. The burden of prosecution never shifts in a criminal case. Whenever a
reasonable doubt appears on the face of record, it goes to accused. ‘Benefit of doubt’ is a
right of accused. Although accused is presumed to be innocent; and his guilt must be proved
beyond all reasonable doubt.20

 In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda21, this Court held that “Graver the crime, greater
should be the standard of proof. An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion
but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or
open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the
accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle has special relevance
where the guilt or the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."

In another case of G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka,22 the Court held

“in cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established. Each fact
sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a
distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference
of facts to be drawn from them on the other. In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has
to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact
is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person
should be considered. In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of
doubt applies. Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not
essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some
of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts.”

Recently the Division Bench of Allahabad HC in the case of Nupur Talwar v. State of U.P.
and anr. “acquitted the Talwars, giving the “benefit of doubt” to them in the face of
insufficient evidence. The Court said, circumstantial evidence was not adequate for a
conviction beyond doubt.”23

CONCLUSION

20
Rao Srinivasa Y., Three Principler of Criminal Juriprudence, Articles on Law, (Sept. 15, 2017, 10: 20 PM)

https://articlesonlaw.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/three-principles-of-criminal-jurisprudence/
21
1984 AIR 1622
22
(2010) 8 SCC 593
23
( Oct. 14, 2017, 07: 05 PM)
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/aarushi-hemraj-murder-case-allahabad-hc-acquits-nupur-and-
rajesh-talwar/story-aIroVYkZChsRdBx2YmEfEP.html

7
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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

8
ONLINE SOURCES:

 http://ijlljs.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/241.pdf
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l136-Circumstantial-Evidence.html
 http://www.manupatra.com/roundup/234/judgments.html
 https://articlesonlaw.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/three-principles-of-criminal-
jurisprudence/
 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Conviction+only+if+circumstantial+evidence+beyo
nd+doubt:+SC/1/10215.html