PROJECT

EVIDENCE LAW

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

BY:-

ABHINAV KAPOOR

SEMESTER 6TH

A3208308088

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL

LAW AND CIVIL LAW

EXAMPLES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

AND CIRCUMSTANCES

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: REALM OR

REALITY

ANALYSIS USING VARIOUS FACTORS AND

EXAMPLES IN INDIAN LAW

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EVIDENCE

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:SOUL BASIS OF

CONVICTION

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DECLARATION

THIS IS TO HEREBY DECLARE THAT I ABHINAV KAPOOR HAS DONE THE PROJECT NAMELY” CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE” UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF MY EVIDENCE LAW LECTURER MS.RUCHI LAL. NOTHING IN THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN COPIED FROM UNRELIABLE SOURCES AND IS AN ORIGINAL WORK. THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHOUT THE GUIDANCE OF MY LECTURER.

ABHINAV KAPOOR

6TH SEMESTER

A3208308088

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it

to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion

directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation

to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not

guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection,

so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more

strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving

circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative

explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a Trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal

law, the inference is made by the Trier of facts in order to support the truth of

assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims

they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance,

a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By

contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she

heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives

circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of

a conclusion, that determines whether or not evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence.

A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed

the victim gives circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be

inferred. (Note that an inference of guilt could be incorrect if the person who actually

fired the weapon was somebody else.)

On the other hand, the additional circumstantial evidence of the defendant's

fingerprint on the trigger would dovetail with this piece to provide corroborating

evidence.

The two areas in which circumstantial evidence is of most importance are civil and

criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.

Civil law

Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or refute liability. It is

usually the most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases

and road traffic accidents. Forensic analysis of skid marks can frequently allow a

reconstruction of the accident. By measuring the length of such marks and using

dynamic analysis of the car and road conditions at the time of the accident, it may be

found that a driver underestimated his or her speed. Forensic science and forensic

engineering are common as much in civil cases as in criminal.

Criminal law

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to

establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. With obvious exceptions (immature,

incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try to avoid generating direct

evidence. Hence the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to

prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly." The same goes

for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to

obtain punitive damages.

One example of circumstantial evidence is the behaviour of a person around the time

of an alleged offense. If someone was charged with theft of money and was then

seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be

circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct

evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a

fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof

of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts

and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several

big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that

would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no

distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

E.g., X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with

Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge or jury

may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial

evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually

not as good as direct evidence (an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because

it is easy to make the wrong inference

Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after

getting it back.

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection

between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case.

Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.

CIRCUMSTANCES

The particulars which accompany a fact.

The facts proved are either possible or impossible, ordinary and probable, or

extraordinary and improbable, recent or ancient; they may have happened near us or

afar off; they are public or private, permanent or transitory, clear and simple or

complicated; they are always accompanied by circumstances which more or less

influence the mind in forming a judgment. And in some instances these

circumstances assume the character of irresistible evidence; where, for example, a

woman was found dead in a room with every mark of having met with a violent

death, the presence of another person at the scene of action was made manifest by

the bloody mark of a left hand visible on her left arm.

These points ought to be carefully examined in order to form a correct opinion. The

first question ought to be; is the fact possible? If so, are there any circumstances

which render it impossible? If the facts are impossible, the witness ought not to be

credited. If, for example, a man should swear that he saw the deceased shoot

himself with his own pistol and upon an examination of the ball which killed him it

should be found too large to enter into the pistol, the witness ought not to be

credited. Or if one should swear that another had been guilty of an impossible crime.

Circumstantial Evidence: Realm of Reality

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to decide the fate of accused by

establishing guilt or innocence through reasoning. According to Bentham 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 a

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 behaviour 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 lawSection 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 defines evidence which is more definite

meaning, wiz, 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 EvidenceIn 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 evidenceCircumstantial 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.

C ircumstantial 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

accused;

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

a. That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty , actually exclude every

hypothesis expect the one proposed to be proved.

'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 Siddhartha 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

ConclusionThe 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 above 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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Circumstantial Evidence: Death, Life, And Justice In A Southern Town

By Pete Earley

Indian Evidence Law By Justice Muneer

Supreme court cases

www.wikipedia.com

Law of evidence bare act

www.indianlegalservices.com