Conviction based on circumstantial evidence
In paragraph 8 of the judgement in Ravinder Kumar v State of NCT of Delhi [2024 INSC 211 ], the Supreme Court (SC) says that the law regarding conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is crystallized in Sharada Birdhichand Sarada v State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1984 SC 1622].
The judgement in latter case stated above relies on Hanumant v State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1952 SC 343] as the most fundamental and basic decision on this matter and states it has been uniformly followed and applied in many later SC decisions.
Circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt
The SC says in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilty to be drawn should be fully established, and all the fact should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and nothing in the chain of evidence should be inconsistent with the guilt of the accused in all probability.
SC guidelines on convict based on circumstantial evidence
The 2024 judgement above, in his paragraph 8, enlists the five conditions to be satisfied to convict an accused on circumstantial evidence alone.
- the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
- 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,
- the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
- they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
- 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.
The SC adds that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except that the accused is guilty and show that the offence must be done by the accused.
Some other SC judgements
The Supreme Court (SC), in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors v State of A P (1996) 10 SCC 193, states, “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….”.
That means, the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must in all probability be pointing to the guilt of the accused.
In case, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case in the form of circumstantial evidence – one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence – the court must adopt the view favourable to the accused.
The SC judgement in Ramesh Bhai & another v State of Rajasthan [ 2009 (12) SCC 603] cites a number of judgements in which accused was convicted primarily on the strength of circumstantial evidence.
References
- Ravinder Kumar v State of NCT of Delhi [2024 INSC 211 ]
- Sharada Birdhichand Sarada v State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1984 SC 1622]
- Hanumant v State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1952 SC 343]
- C. Chenga Reddy & Ors v State of A P [(1996) 10 SCC 193]
- Ramesh Bhai & another v State of Rajasthan [2009 (12) SCC 603]
