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.
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 Supreme Court held that in a case based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish the incriminating circumstances by leading cogent and consistent evidence and the circumstances so proved against an accused must lead to irresistible conclusion that it was the accused and the accused alone who has committed the crime and no other hypothesis consistent with the innocence can be inferred.
In Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 Supreme Court held that the evidence of a hostile witness is not liable to be rejected altogether rather it can be used by the prosecution to corroborate its case against the accused. The Court thus believed through this that the deceased died in her matrimonial home.
In judgment Vadugu Chanti Babu v. State of A.P. (2002) 6 SCC 547 Supreme Court held that a stray statement of the doctor in his cross-examination is not a conclusive opinion but it is only a possibility.
In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 Supreme Court held that offering no explanation or evasive reply to an incriminating circumstance cannot form the basis for conviction of an accused, but a husband must say something how his wife has died in his house. In a situation like this, the appellant’s offering no explanation on death of his wife would by itself become an incriminating circumstance which would provide a link in the chain of the circumstances.
In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 Supreme Court held :
“12. ….…..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.”
