Project

Circumstantial Evidence with reference to Case Law

Submitted by
Prasham Goel
Group-B, PRN No-13010224078 Class-BBA-LLB of 2013-18
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International University, Pune.
In
February, 2017

Under the guidance of

Mr. Aditya Kumar
Professor of Law of Evidence

1
 INDEX

Page No.

Introduction 5

Circumstantial Evidence 5

Analysis of the term Evidence 6

Essentials of Circumstantial Evidence 6

Different Precedents on Circumstantial Evidences 7

Application of Circumstantial Evidence in Jessica Lal Murder Case 9

Reference 10

2
 CERTIFICATE

The project entitled Circumstantial Evidence with reference to Case

Law submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Evidence Law as part
of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance
of Aditya Kumar . The Research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award
of any degree.
The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper
has been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism,
if any, detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date:

3
 Acknowledgement

I am very thankful to everyone who all supported me, for I have completed
my project effectively and, moreover, on time.
I am equally grateful to Prof Aditya Kumar. He without any hesitation
solved all my queries and advised me on how to make a better project. It
was only due to his continuous support that i am able to make this project

4
Introduction

Men may tell a lie, women may a tell lie, but circumstances do not tell a lie.

It is a normal assumption that When someone commits a crime he will make sure that there would
be no evidence left at the crime scene that may prove him guilty making the case an open and shut
case. But, even if you are playing smart like purchasing witnesses, removal of weapon used to
commit the crime, etc., there are circumstances which are not within anyones control. One simply
cannot change the circumstance revolving around the whole case, and that may become the
strongest evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. One should be aware of the fact that whenever
a case is presented before the court, the circumstantial evidences may turns out to be the eyes and
ears of justice. The task to differentiate between the twovictim and the culprit is never a cake
walk for the judge as he was not present when the crime took place. Hence, evidence plays a vital
role in determining whether the accused is guilty or not.

Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence also known as indirect evidence is evidence that give rise to a logical
inference that such a fact does exist. It relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact
sought to be proved. It is the evidence that is drawn not from direct observation of a fact at issue
but from events or circumstances that surround it. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact, or a
series of facts, which tends to show whether something is true.

Section 3 of Indian evidence Act categorizes evidence into direct and indirect evidence; direct
evidence draws inference of commission of an offence through closely connected chain of facts,
it applies to those cases where there is no direct evidence and circumstances furnish the reasonable
possibility that offence is committed by accused.

In words of Stephen Leacock, My evidence for this assertion is all indirect, its what we call
circumstantial evidence the same the people are hang for. Giving the importance of circumstantial
evidence in criminal cases and discussing the present role of circumstantial evidence, in nailing
the two most leading cases, of Manu Sharma and Santosh Kumar, the same evidence that the trial
court had dismissed as being insufficient or inadequate for conviction. Although it seems self-
evident, that meaning of evidence must be articulated first, before the next steps in the analytical
process may be pursued.

5
Analysis of the Term Evidence

Evidence is that piece of documents and information which is presented before the judge to reach
a conclusion. According to Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 18721

All the statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses,
about matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called Oral evidence;
All the documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court;
such documents are called documentary evidence;

Further, there are various forms of evidence such as Oral evidence, Documentary evidence,
Primary evidence, Secondary evidence, Real Evidence, Hearsay evidence, Non-Judicial evidence,
Direct evidence and Circumstantial evidence.

Essentials of Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence plays a vital role in delivering justice to the innocent. However, one should take care of
any evidence which is going to be produced before the court. As it must fulfill the essential
elements of being admissible in court. A case can be solely adjudged by circumstantial evidence
if the following essentials are fulfilled2

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.

1
Indian Evidence Act, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 21st Edition, Nagpur
2
State of UP vs. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045

6
Different Case laws on Circumstantial Evidences

Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State Of A.P3

Honble Judges: S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar

The Court again considered the case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence and held as
under: It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching
evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no
conclusion other than one of guilt of the Accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other
hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute
for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an Accused guilty only on the
basis of the circumstantial evidence.

Sattatiya vs. State of Maharashtra 4

Honble Judges: G.P. Mathur and G.S. Singhvi

The Court held as under: We have thoughtfully considered the entire matter. It is settled law that
an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where
there is no direct evidence. The court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the Accused.
Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt 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. This Court further observed in the aforesaid
decision that: At this stage, we also deem it proper to observe that in exercise of power under
Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court will be extremely loath to upset the judgment of
conviction which is confirmed in appeal. However, if it is found that the appreciation of evidence
in a case, which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, is vitiated by serious errors and on
that account miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, then the Court will certainly interfere even
with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court. In the light of the
above, we shall now consider whether in the present case the prosecution succeeded in establishing
the chain of circumstances leading to an inescapable conclusion that the Appellant had committed
the crime.

3
(AIR 2012 SC 1552)
4
(AIR 2008 SC 1184)

7
State of Goa vs. Pandurang Mohite5
Honble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma

The Court reiterated: The settled law that where a conviction 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
person. 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. It would be appropriate to consider
some of the recent decisions of this Court in cases where conviction was based on the
circumstantial evidence.

Brajendra Singh vs. State of M.P.

Honble Judges: A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.

The Court while reiterating the above principles further added that: Furthermore, the rule which
needs to be observed by the court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that
the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to
be examined cumulatively. The court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see
whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt
of the Accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these
principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the Accused is
innocent till proven guilty and that the Accused is entitled to a just and fair trial.

5
AIR 2009 SC 1066

8
Application of Circumstantial Evidence the case of Jessica Lal
The Jessica Lal murder case is one of the most cited, debated and controversial cases where the
Apex Courts decision was based on the circumstantial evidence as the witnesses had turned
hostile.
In beginning, the trial court had acquitted the accused on the ground of hostile witnesses and lack
of strong evidence. Delhi High Court reversed the judgment and held the accused guilty of
murdering Jessica Lal, who was a bartender at a restaurant in Qutub Colonnade in the capital city,
and was shot by accused, when she refused to give him liquor as the bar was closed.6

During the trial, the three critical eye witnesses recanted earlier statements made to the police, and
twenty-nine witnesses of lesser importance did the same. The trail court delivered its verdict on
the grounds of such evidences produced and did not go beyond them, or deep to know the role of
the accused and acquitted Sharma and eight other co-defendants of all charges in February 2006,
though it accepted Manu Sharmas presence on that night at the restaurant along with the other
accused as having been proved.
The trial judge commented after the outcome that:

The court has acquitted them because the Delhi police failed to sustain the grounds on which they
had built up their case. The police failed to recover the weapon which was used to fire at Jessica
Lal as well as prove their theory that the two cartridges, emptied shells of which were recovered
from the spot, were fired from one weapon.

The case acquired such a high-profile character that the then President Dr. Abdul Kalam received
a petition of 200, 000 names collected by journalists at NDTV, appealing against the judgment.

Delhi High Court, deciding on the appeal from this case investigated into the circumstantial
evidence and found that the cartridges found belonged to the accused and stated that the lower
court had been lax in not considering the testimony of important witnesses such as Bina Ramani
and Deepak Bhojwani, stating regarding the treatment of the latters evidence that

With very great respect to the learned judge [Bhayana], we point out that this manner of testing
the credibility of the witness is hardly a rule of appreciation of evidence. Obviously, this reflects
a total lack of application of mind and suggests a hasty approach towards securing a particular
end, namely the acquittal

The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.50,000 to be paid to
the family of the victim. The Apex Court upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court and the

6
2001 III AD Delhi 829

9
Bench comprising Justices P. Sathasivam, and B. Swatenter Kumar held that the presence of the
accused at the scene of the crime had been proved through the ocular testimonies of several
witnesses. The circumstantial evidence connects the vehicles and cartridges used at the site of the
crime, to the accused as well as his conduct after the incident (he first absconded but surrendered
later) proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

References:

Indian Evidence Law By Justice Muneer

Indian Evidence Act, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 21st
Edition, Nagpur

10