Circumstantial Evidence in Law: A Comprehensive Guide, Cheat Sheet of Law of Evidence

Download Circumstantial Evidence in Law: A Comprehensive Guide and more Cheat Sheet Law of Evidence in PDF only on Docsity!

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

MEANING OF EVIDENCE

 The word ‘Evidence’ has been derived from the Latin word ‘evidere’ which implies to show distinctly, to make clear to view or sight, to discover clearly, to make plainly certain, to certain, to ascertain, to prove.  According to Sir Blackstone , ‘Evidence’ signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear or ascertain the truth of the facts or points in issue either on one side or the other.  According to Sir Taylor, Law of Evidence means through argument to prove or disprove any matter of fact. The truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.

EVIDENCE MEANS AND INCLUDES-

 (1) All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under enquiry; such statements are called Oral evidence;  (2) All the documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called documentary evidence;  The definition of Evidence given in this Act is very narrow because in this evidence comes before the court by two means only-  (1) The statement of witnesses.  (2) Documents including electronic records.

EVIDENCE- DIRECT EVIDENCE



Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based

on a witness's personal knowledge or

observation of that fact. A person's guilt of

a charged crime may be proven by direct

evidence if, standing alone, that evidence

satisfies a judge beyond a reasonable

doubt of the person's guilt of that crime.

CIRCUMSTANSTIAL EVIDENCE

 Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from which a person may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances which can be relied upon not as proving a fact directly but instead as pointing to its existence.  Circumstantial evidence is based largely on inference and uses inductive reasoning.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE- COMPLEX



Circumstantial evidence is more complex. A

witness did not see the stabbing. The witness

did see the defendant go into the house

carrying a knife. The witness heard a scream

inside the house and saw the defendant run

out, not carrying the knife. The victim is later

found inside with a knife in her back. A

reasonable inference is that the defendant

stabbed the victim. Whether that fact is true

will determine if the defendant is guilty.

CRIMES SCENE INVESTIGATIONS



The proper recognition, documentation,

reconstruction, submission of relevant

evidence, and preservation of evidence is

critically important in all crimes scene

investigations.

FIVE GOLDEN PRINCIPLES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE

 Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622)

1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully 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 unerringly pointing towards the guilt o f the accused.
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 five golden principles, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”

PRINCIPLE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS LAID DOWN BY SC  Shanti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 954 OF 2005]. “The principles can be set out as under: (i) The circumstances from which an interference of guilt is sought to be proved must be conjointly or firmly established. (ii) The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with an all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused or none else. (iv) The circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis, same that of the guilt of the accused.” [Para 8]

C. CHENGA REDDY V. STATE OF A.P. (1996) 10 SCC

 “21. 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.”

TRIMUKH MAROTI KIRKAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,

(2006) 10 SCC 681

 “12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”

THE SAME PRINCIPLES WERE REITERATED IN

 Bodhraj vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2002 (8) SCC 45,  Bharat vs. State of Maharashtra (2003 (3) SCC 106),  Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab (2005(12) SCC 438),  Reddy Sampath Kumar vs. State of Andra Pradesh (2005 (7) SCC 603),  Deepak Chandrakant Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (2006 (10) SCC 151,  State of Goa vs. Sanjay Takran (2007 (3) SCC 755) and  Sattatiyya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla vs. State of Maharashtra (2008 (3) SCC 210).

ROHTASH KUMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA [(2013) 14

SCC 434]

 (^) “The evidence regarding the existence of a motive which operates in the mind of the accused is very often very limited, and may not be within the reach of others. The motive driving the accused to commit an offence may be known only to him and to no other. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive may be a very relevant factor. However, it is the perpetrator of the crime alone who is aware of the circumstances that prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggests adequately, the existence of the necessary motive required to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has  (^) in fact, committed the same.”