Sei sulla pagina 1di 16

CONTENTION-1

[ALL ABOUT IT]

[CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE]

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.

In words of Stephen Leacock,

“My evidence for this assertion is all indirect, it’s 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.

Historical Background of Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened but it is often
useful as a guide for further investigation. An example from genealogy would be that if
census records showed several people with the same surname lived at the same address,
likely relationships could be inferred from age and gender. Circumstantial evidence is used in
criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important
role in civil courts to establish or or deny liability.

Analysis of the term Evidence

Evidence" is the raw material which a judge or adjudicator uses to reach "findings of fact".
The findings of fact that the evidence generates are - for all their flaws - "what happened" for
all intents and purposes of the legal proceeding. If you do not agree with the fact-finding that
has been made (or even if you know it to be wrong), recognize that the rules of evidence are
the best rules that law know of to reach the necessary goal of fact-finding.
“In its original sense the word ‘evidence’ signifies, the state of being evident i.e. plain,
apparent or notorious. But…. It is applied to that which tends to render evidence or generate
proof …. The fact sought to be proved is called the principal fact; the fact which tends to
establish it, the evidentiary fact”

Analysis of the Term “Circumstantial Evidence”

Television show lawyers speak a lot about "circumstantial evidence". "Circumstantial


evidence" however is not so much a type of evidence as it is logical principle of deduction.
Deduction is reasoning from general known principles to a specific proposition

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.

An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior 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.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in Holland v. United States .

That "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct]


evidence" Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little
practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials. Similarly in
India the two leading case of Priyadarshani Matoo and Jessica Lal were heavily
based on circumstantial evidence.

Evidence as per English Law

According to Stephens the word “evidence” is used in three senses

1) Words uttered, and thing exhibited in Court,

2) Facts proved by those words or things, which are regarded as ground word of inference as
to other facts not so proved, and

3) Relevancy of a particular fact to matter under inquiry

Evidence as per Indian law Section S of Indian Evidence Act 1872 defines evidence which is
more definite meaning, viz, the first one. Evidence thus signifies only the instruments by
means of which relevant facts are brought before the Court .Evidence is generally divided
into three categories facts are brought before the Court. Evidence is generally divided into
three categories:

1) Oral or personal

2) Documentary and,

3) Material or real.

The definition of “evidence “must be read together with that of “proved”. The combine
results of these two definition is that evidence under the Indian Evidence Act which is not
only the medium of proof but there are in addition to this , number of other” matter” which
the Courts has to take into consideration, when forming its conclusion. Thus the definition of
“evidence” in the Indian evidence Act is incomplete and narrow.

In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, the Supreme Court has held that under
section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, besides oral and documentary evidence, electronic
record can also be admitted as evidence. The Court further stated that evidence ruled in
criminal matters could be by way of electronic records, which would also include
videoconferencing, Hence “ what is no evidence”

a) A confession or the statement of one accessed under Section 342,CrP.C

b) Demeanour of witness (section 361, Cr.P.C ,O18,R,12,C.P.C)

c)local investigation or inspection (O.26,R,9);(O18,R18,C.P.C;sections 293 , 539B,CrP.C )

d) Facts judicially noticeable without proof (Section 56, 57 Act)

e) Material objects (Section60)

Further coming to the subject, English text writers has divide evidence into

a) Direct evidence

b) Indirect and circumstantial evidence

Direct Evidence

In this sense direct evidence is the evidence is that which goes expressly to the very point in
question and proves it, if believed without aid from inference or deductive reasoning, e.g.,
eye witness to a murder is direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is


usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The
distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious
exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or ), nearly all criminals are careful to not generate
direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens
rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to
circumstantial evidence. The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a
high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.

Circumstantial Evidence: Soul Basis Of Conviction


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

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 Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar 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 vs. State" 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 case.

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.
Similarly in the famous case of Bodh Raj V. State of Jammu & Kashmir,
Court held that circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for conviction provided the
conditions as stated below is fully staisfied. Condition are:

1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;

2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accussed;

3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency ;

a. That the circumstances should, to a moral certanity , actually exclude every hypotheis
expectthe one proposed to be proved.

Similary in Priyadharshani Matto case

'That I know the defendant is guilty, my hands are tied. As a judge, I can only go by the
evidence provided by the investigative agencies.' These were the words of Additional
Sessions Judge G P Thareja, who acquitted Santosh Kumar Singh, Delhi University law
student who committed rape and murder of Priyadharshani Matto. But However the
Delhi High court said that the overall analysis of the circumstances proved beyond
doubt and the evidence is unimpeachable that Singh has committed rape and murder.
"We are of the view to convict him (Singh) under section 302 (murder) and 376 (rape)
of the Indian Penal Code," the Bench said. The Court observed that the trial court
verdict was "perverse" and shocked the judicial conscience. The court said the evidence
was incompatible with Singh's plea of innocence and "we held him guilty of the offence
he committed".

Likewise in long-awaited State v Sidhartha Vashisht and Others- Held, this case is
one that has shocked the confidence of the society in the criminal delivery system. Wrapping
up the appeal in 25 hearings, a Bench comprising Justice R S Sodhi and Justice P K Bhasin,
which had given death sentence to Santosh Kumar Singh in the Priyadarshni Mattoo case,
also convicted Vikas Yadav, an accused in the Nitish Katara murder case, and Amardeep
Singh Gill alias Tony, an executive in a multinational firm, for conspiracy and destruction of
evidence.
"We have no hesitation in holding that Manu Sharma is guilty of an offence under Section
302 (murder) of IPC for having committed the murder of Jessica Lal ... As also under Section
27 of the Arms Act," the Bench said allowing the appeal of the Delhi Police.

"In the totality of circumstances adduced from material on record, the judgment under
challenge appears to us to be an immature assessment.

Conclusion

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.

Reference

1) 2003(2)RCR (Criminal)SC771
2) 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]

3) 1983) 1 SCC 211 (pp. 214-15, Para 71980 (2) SCC 665

4) 1999 (5) SCC 253], (supra) at page 516

5) AIR 2002 SC 316

6) 20/12/2006 (DELHI HIGH COURT)

7) Circumstantial Evidence: Death, Life, And Justice In A Southern Town (Paperback) by


Pete Earley

8) Indian Evidence Law By Justice Muneer


Liyakat vs State Of Uttaranchal on 25 February, 2008
Author: . A Pasayat

Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 378 of 2008

PETITIONER:

Liyakat

RESPONDENT:

State of Uttaranchal

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/02/2008

BENCH:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 378 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.3314 of


2006) With Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3316 of 2006) Dr. ARIJIT
PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Uttranchal High Court.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of a Division Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court which disposed of Criminal Reference
No. 2 of 2004 and two Criminal Appeal Nos. 45 and 46 of 2002. The two criminal appeals were filed by Liyakat the present appellant and
co-accused Smt. Zahira. The reference was necessitated as the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ist Fast Track Court
Hardwar has awarded death sentence to the accused Liyakat. awarded death sentence to accused Liyakat. He had also awarded sentences of
imprisonment for life to Zahira and the accused No. 3. Both of them were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The trial court, however had acquitted Accused Nos. 2 and 4 namely Riyasat and Jeewani.

BRIEF FACTS--

[ 4. Noor Alam was child of PW 1 Rashid and his wife PW 2 Nasreen. PW 1 Rashid and PW2 Nasreen used to reside in the

neighbourhood of Jeewani, original accused No. 4. On the fateful day i.e. on 12th day of January, 1999, Nasreen was sitting alongwith her
child in the courtyard of Gulami's house, who is husband of original accused no.4 Jeewani. At that time Zaheera, Jiwani, Liyakat and
Riyasat were also there. Her husband Rashid, P.W. 1 came there and asked his wife to go with him to feed fertilizer to the standing crop in
the field. However, Nasreen declined to go with him as there was nobody to lookafter Noor Alam. Hearing this, Jeewani and other accused
persons told that they will look after the child and she could leave the child with them. P.W.3 Brahm Pal and one Rishipal were also there at
that time. The child was left by Nasreen with the accused persons and she left the place alongwith her husband. When both of them returned
at about 4 O'clock, they straightaway went to the house of Gulami and enquired about Noor Alam. Accused told them that Noor Alam was
playing in the vicinity only. However, they could not find the child. They searched for the child for the rest of the day and night and even on
13th of January, 1999, but to no effect. However, in the morning of 14th, when Rashid was searching for child alongwith Brahmpal,
Bhagwan and Yasin, they searched the house or hut of Liyakat and saw that in the northern corner of that hut, foot of small child was
protruding out of the ground. Seeing this Rashid reached to the Police Station, Laksar and reported the matter.

5. A case was registered on that basis and the Incharge of the Police out-post (Chauki) was informed on wireless and received the
message. O.P. Sisodia PW 8 with other officials reached the house of the accused and in presence of the witnesses, body of Noor Alam,
which was buried in the pit in the northern corner of the hut was recovered. Panchnama and other formalities were completed and on that
very day all the accused persons were arrested.

6. The prosecution relied on eight witnesses. They being the parents of the child PW 1 Rashid and PW 2 Nasreen and two other
witnesses PW 3 Brahm Pal and PW 4 Rishipal. They all supported the prosecution story. Besides them, PW 6 Dr. R.K. Pande is the medical
officer, who had conducted post mortem on the dead body and PW 7 Rishipal and PW 8. O.P. Sisodia are the police witnesses.

7. Case of the prosecution in short was that appellant Liyakat, Riyasat, Zahira and Jeewani committed murder of Noor Alam a child
aged about 1= years, the deceased and they buried to the body of the child with an idea of screening the act. The trial court accepted the
prosecution version in part so far as the appellant and Zahira are concerned but directed acquittal of the co-accused. The trial court found
that the evidence was clear and cogent and therefore the appellant Liyakat was given life sentence and Zahira was given death sentence.
Since the sentence of death was awarded, the reference was made to the High Court for confirmation in terms of Section 367 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). ]


8. The High Court by the impugned judgment altered the death sentence awarded to appellant
Liyakat life sentence. It however upheld the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Zahira.

9. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case based on
circumstantial evidence and the circumstances highlighted by the trial court and the High Court do not
warrant a conclusion that the appellants were responsible for the murder of the child.

10. With reference to the medical evidence, it was submitted that this was not a case of
strangulation and therefore the conclusion of killing the child of suffocation cannot be maintained.

11. The circumstances which were highlighted against the appellant was the fact that the child
was left in the custody of the appellants, the dead body was found buried in the premises of the
appellants. No explanation by way of suggestion in cross examination or in the
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was offered as to how the dead
body was found buried in the hut of the accused which was in his exclusive
use.

12. Following circumstances were highlighted by the prosecution to substantiate its accusations:

(1) That the child Noor Alam was handed over in the custody of the accused persons at about 1
O'clock by the parents;

(IA) That the child was either a toddler or a crawling boy;

(2) That the child was missing barely within three hours after he was given in the custody of the
accused persons;

(3) That there was no explanation given by the accused for the missing of the boy to the parents
and they only casually replied that the child must have been playing somewhere else;
(4) That the dead-body of the child was found buried in the hut, which was in the use and
occupation of the accused persons;

(5) That there is no explanation whatsoever as to how his body came to be buried in the hut of
these accused persons;

(6) That the unsubstantiated defence raised by the appellant no.2 Zaheera suggesting the alibi,
which could not be proved at all and has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court;

(7) That the child died unnatural and homicidal death due to suffocation and that the child had
died even before it was buried.

13. Before analysing the factual aspects it may be stated that for a crime to be proved it is not
necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be
proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the court those persons who had seen its
commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or
factum probandum may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum
probans, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the
point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the
fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the
principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
FOLLOW UP –

VARIOUS CASES PROVING THE IMPORTANCE OF


CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES
14. It has been consistently laid down by this Court 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.

(See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1977)2 SCC 99), Eradu v. State of Hyderabad
(AIR 1956 SC316),Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka [(1983) 2 SCC 330], State of
U.P. v. Sukhbasi [AIR 1985 SC 1224], Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab[AIR 1987 SC
350] and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. [AIR 1989 SC 1890].

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. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab [AIR 1954
SC 621] it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be as to negative the innocence of
the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

15. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy v.
State of A.P. [1996 (10) SCC 193] wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07,
para 21) "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."
16. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. [AIR 1990 SC 79] it was laid
down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following
tests: (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10)

"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and
firmly established;

(2 ) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;

(3) 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
none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

17. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastavaii [1992(2) SCC 86]

it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the
evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be
accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully
established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the
hypothesis of guilt.

18. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book Wills' Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter
VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial
evidence:

"(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond
reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on
the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases,
whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the
nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must
be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other
reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt
of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted."

19. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should
be tested on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as
far back as in 1952.

20. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC 343]

it was observed thus: (AIR pp. 345-46, para 10) "It is well to remember that in cases where the
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, and all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of
a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

21. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.


State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622]. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial
evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and
the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions
precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence,
must be fully established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153)

( 1 ) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be 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;

( 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.

22. The above position was highlighted in

State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [2003(8) SCC 180].

REASONING –

CHAIN OF EVENTS IN THE CASE OF LIYAKAT VS STATE OF


UTTRANCHAL

23. It has been rightly noted by the trial court and the High Court that the accused persons were
absolutely silent and no explanation was offered as to how the body came to be buried in their hut which
was in their exclusive user.

24. Similarly the non-explanation of this vital circumstance adds to the chain of circumstances. It is
now settled law that if the deceased was in the custody or in the company of the accused, then the accused
must supply some explanation regarding the disappearance of the deceased.

25. In the factual background, it is considered in the light of the decisions referred to above, the
inevitable conclusion is that the appeals are sans merit, deserve dismissal which we direct. We record our
appreciation for the able manner in which Mr. Y.P. Singh, learned Amicus Curiae assisted the case.

Potrebbero piacerti anche