Conviction possible on circumstantial evidence
An accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone in some cases, when the circumstantial evidence altogether inspires confidence of the court and point to the guilt of the accused alone.
The judgement of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court (HC) in Babu@Kamalakshy Babu v State of Kerala is one obvious example to such a situation where an accused was convicted based on circumstantial evidence alone.
Circumstantial evidence is an indirect mode of proof by drawing inference from facts closely connected to the fact in issue in the case. There is a well-established legal principle that the witness may lie but not the circumstances.
Facts of the case
The prosecution case was that the deceased little child of 7-month-old sleeping with the parents on the veranda of a wayside shop at Kodungallur was kidnapped, molested, murdered and her body left naked under a tamarind tree at a distance, by one Babu who asked for the child for a price and said that she would be lifted one day.
When to convict on circumstantial evidence?
The HC found in the paragraph 18 of the judgement that this was a case resting on the circumstantial evidence which can also be called indirect evidence. The circumstantial evidence can be conclusive or presumptive. It is conclusive when there is a connection between the principal fact and the evidentiary fact.
The essential ingredients to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence are:
- circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved
- circumstances should be conclusive
- the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence of the accused
- circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of a person other than the accused
Fit case to convict on circumstantial evidence
In this case, the reliable prosecution evidence forms a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellant and no other hypothesis is possible. The evidence tendered by the prosecution and the defence have been subjected to meticulous analysis by the trial court and there was no missing link in connecting the circumstances to form a complete chain.
The accused was convicted by the trial court and the HC confirmed the conviction in the above case of molestation and murder of 7 month old girl child.
Case laws upholding conviction on circumstantial evidence
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 cites a number of judgements in which accused was convicted primarily on the strength of circumstantial evidence.
Further reading
- Babu@Kamalakshy Babu v State of Kerala : 2017(2) KLD 67 (DB) / Crl A No: 2344 of 2010
- State Of U.P v Dr Ravindra Prakash Mittal : AIR 1992 SC 2045
- Ramesh Bhai & another v State of Rajasthan : Crl A No 868-869 of 2004
