Search LawGlobal Hub

How Far Circumstantial Evidence is Admissible to Conclusively Decide the Case

Section 2(1)(k) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam¹ “relevant”.—A fact is said to be relevant to another when it is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Adhiniyam relating to the relevancy of facts;

In India, the term “circumstantial evidence” was first used by James Stephens, who defined it as the facts that are relevant to other facts and whose existence can be proved/established by the existence of other facts. Circumstantial evidence is also called relevant facts or corroborating facts.

These are based on the principle of:-
“Men may lie but circumstances do not.”

Circumstantial evidence can be relied upon not for proving a fact directly but instead as pointing to its existence. In short, it is a form of corroborative evidence whereby each instance forms a link with the other, to form a complete chain.

Circumstantial evidence, hence, is known as ‘indirect evidence’, since it cannot independently prove a fact and has to be seen or deduced together with the help of related circumstances. Circumstantial evidence is thus largely reliant on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or ‘the thing speaks for itself.’

Principles of Circumstantial Evidence

• HANUMANT v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH²

The Supreme Court established the “Five Golden Principles of Circumstantial Evidence” or the “Panchsheel Guidelines” as guidelines to govern convictions based on circumstantial evidence. They have been stated below as follows:

1. It is crucial to carefully examine the conditions from which it is appropriate to infer the guilt of the accused.
2. The facts thus developed should be compatible only with the hypothesis of the defendant’s guilt, that is to say, under any other hypothesis they should not be explainable but that the defendant is guilty.
3. The circumstances should be strong enough and conclusive to draw a firm conclusion about the guilt of the accused.
4. The only theory that should be included is the one that needs to be confirmed. The rest should be omitted.
5. There must be a chain of evidence complete and must indicate that the accused must have done the act in all human likelihood.

The same has been reiterated in the leading case of SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA³

• ANWAR ALI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH⁴

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, in case of circumstantial evidence, 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. 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.

See also: Shruti Vora v. SEBI: Case Comment

Essentials of Circumstantial Evidence

According to C.J. Monir, circumstantial evidence must be both exclusive and decisive; the following are some of the essentials laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of;

• SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN⁵

The principles can be set out as under:-

1. The circumstances from which inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be conjointly or firmly established.
2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must 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.
4. The circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis, same as that of the guilt of the accused.

Evidentiary Value of Circumstantial Evidence

It is a popular misconception that circumstantial evidence carries less weight or importance than direct evidence. This is only partly true. While direct evidence is generally seen as more powerful, most successful prosecutions rely greatly on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence because it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

The law draws no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance. Either type of evidence may be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case.

Human agency may be faulty in expressing actual incidents with accuracy but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many times, it is aptly said that “men may tell lies, but circumstances do not”.

The convictions in the following two cases is solely based on the the circumstantial evidences:-

1. 2023 (47 of 23 [↩]
2. AIR 1952 SC 343 [↩]
3. 1984 AIR 1622 [↩]
4. 2021 (1) SCC (Cri) 395 [↩]
5. Criminal Appeal NO. 954 OF 2005 [↩]