Introduction:
An integral piece of information required for showing the guilt or innocence of a defendant or accused (as the case may be) is ‘evidence.’ Evidence is crucial to every dispute as it enables the right conclusion in that particular dispute. Generally, evidence is classified as ‘direct and circumstantial.’ The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not specifically deal with and define the two types however, as per custom, evidence is universally classified in this manner. Most cases have both types however, circumstantial evidence is more predominantly found. This type of evidence is subjective and vaguer as against direct evidence since it depends on several circumstances or instances that can be linked to each other.
Contrary to popular belief, circumstantial evidence can be the only criterion for convicting an accused. This stance of law is not only seen in India but also accepted universally. It is not the quantity of evidence rather, the quality of evidence that matters.[1] Direct evidence does not necessarily guarantee a conviction. Similarly, a case in which the claimant only has circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence does not signify that conviction is impossible. Thus, the two types of evidence weigh the same in terms of their relevance.
In light of the important role played by circumstantial evidence in establishing the guilt or innocence of an individual, this article aims at studying and understanding this concept in a much more comprehensive manner. It aims at understanding the history behind circumstantial evidence, examining the essentials required to establish its relevance in a dispute, and the laws related to it. The article also studies the concept of circumstantial evidence from an Indian and an international perspective by examining landmark judgments.
Understanding Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence: A brief explanation
The term ‘evidence’ is derived from the Latin word ‘evident’ which means ‘apparent’ or ‘obvious.’ It is the medium through which proof is established. This, in turn, eventually leads to conviction or acquittal as the case may be. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act) does not specifically define evidence. It states the purview of evidence to include oral and documentary evidence and defines the two.[2] Some scholars consider the definition of the term ‘evidence’ to be included under Section 5 of the Act however, they acknowledge that this interpretation is far from perfect and is incomplete. Even if sections 3 and 5 of the Act were to be considered and read together, the definition would still be considered to be incomplete. What can be inferred from the Act, however, is that evidence qualifies as a fact that needs to be proven before the court.
Though the Act provides an unsatisfactory definition for evidence, the definitions for oral and documentary evidence are much more comprehensive. The meaning and scope of these two pieces of evidence are found in sections 59 to 65 of the Act. Oral evidence refers to any fact that a witness has seen, heard, perceived in any way, or maybe considered an opinion. Similarly, documentary evidence, as enumerated in the Act, consists of primary and secondary evidence. While primary evidence signifies the original copy of the document, secondary evidence refers to copies of the original documents or “oral accounts of the contents of the document.”
Types of Evidence
While the Indian Evidence Act categorizes evidence into oral and documentary, a more universally accepted form of classification of this is direct and circumstantial.[3] These two forms of evidence are not expressly mentioned in the Act however, from time to time courts both in India and internationally, have clarified the scope of the two.
Direct evidence, as the name suggests, refers to that evidence wherein a fact can be directly shown and thus, used to prove a particular instance or matter in a dispute. This evidence presents the fact in a black or white manner, that is, it objectively tells us whether the instance occurred or not. For example, if the accused shot a man and the witness saw the act play out right before his eyes then the witness’ testimony would serve as direct evidence as he saw the accused commit the crime.
Conversely, circumstantial evidence is much more ambiguous. It fails to directly prove the instance that the concerned party wishes to prove. It is corroborative and forms a link that finally leads to a definite conclusion or evidence. The most common example of this form of evidence is when the witness in a particular case testifies to have seen the accused with a gun in hand at the crime scene however, the former did not see the latter carry out the act. In such an instance the may accuse simply arrived at the scene later and picked up the gun.
As mentioned earlier, circumstantial evidence and direct evidence essentially have the same persuasive value in a court of law. A common understanding of circumstantial evidence is that it can be easily dismissed in a dispute and hence, among laymen and to some extent, the legal fraternity, a sort of distrust exists for this form of evidence. However, the opinion that ‘circumstantial evidence is less reliable as against direct evidence’ is blatantly incorrect. It stems from the “fallacious comparison of cases involving very strong direct evidence with weak circumstantial cases.” If used properly, circumstantial evidence can offer much greater persuasive value to turn the dispute in one’s favor.[4]
Circumstantial Evidence: Meaning and Essentials
Circumstantial evidence as defined by Wills refers to “the evidence afforded not by the direct testimony of an eye witness to the fact to be proved, but by the bearing upon that fact or other and subsidiary facts which are relied upon and inconsistent with any result other than the truth of the principal fact.”[5] In short, it is a form of corroborative evidence whereby each instance forms a link with the other to provide a complete picture. Circumstantial evidence is also known as ‘indirect evidence’ since it cannot provide a clear picture individually and has to be deduced by examining several related circumstances.
It is not enough that from a particular circumstance a hypothesis of guilt can be inferred. If despite this, the innocence of the accused can be inferred too from the same circumstance, then the evidence cannot qualify to be strong enough or considered.[6] The main reason behind this is due to the principle of proving the guilt of the accused ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The benefit of the doubt is always extended in favor of the accused.[7] However, this does not signify that one missing link would make the entire evidence unacceptable. As long as it logically correlates to the principal fact (factum probandum) and proves the inference, the court will accept the evidence.[8] Circumstantial evidence is thus, largely reliant on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or ‘the thing speaks for itself.’
The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra[9] laid down five essentials for “circumstantial evidence to be accepted as the sole basis of conviction.” These included:
These five elements of circumstantial evidence are known as the ‘panchsheel.’ In India, they form the foundation of cases that are heavily dependent on circumstantial evidence.
Origin
The origin of circumstantial evidence cannot be accurately traced back. Though articulated by Aristotle and other thinkers of that particular time, it had not fully developed to the form it is currently in. On the whole, circumstantial evidence, at that time, was not paid much attention since it was considered inferior due to its indefinite nature. This was largely the opinion during the Roman-canonist period up to the fifteenth century. Conviction due to circumstantial evidence alone was impossible.
From the sixteenth century though, a visible shift in the approach to circumstantial evidence was seen. In England, juries slowly shifted their focus from ‘personal knowledge’ to ‘evaluation of evidence’ presented before the court. Though initially unsure of it, courts acknowledged the necessity of indirect evidence in addition to direct testimonial evidence and were dependent on it. Treatises on English Law did initially ignore this concept however, they soon released that crimes such as poisoning, rape, et cetera., could only be proved with the help of circumstantial evidence. By the end of the sixteenth century, circumstantial evidence was well-known and well-accepted by the legal fraternity. Circumstances would help link events that would eventually lead to ‘probable or violent presumption.’ However, a conviction was only possible in instances of violent presumption.[10]
In India, circumstantial evidence was officially introduced indirectly in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The term was first used by Sir James Stephen, an English judge, stating “circumstantial evidence to be facts that are relevant to the other fact, whose existence can prove by the existence of other facts.” Sir James was a key player in the formulation of the Act where the concept was briefly but indirectly introduced. This concept of circumstantial evidence has evolved over the years from this definition through the interplay between statutes and judicial interpretation.[11]
Laws and Doctrines: Forms of Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence consists of certain key doctrines and laws that help further explain the concept. They are evaluated to examine the strength and admissibility of the evidence presented.
Last Seen Doctrine
The last seen doctrine is a type of circumstantial evidence. It is not a conclusive form of evidence and hence, does not qualify to be used to establish guilt. To establish guilt using this particular doctrine, therefore, the surrounding circumstances must also be examined such that links can be formed between the various circumstances. There should be corroborative evidence for this doctrine to be acknowledged in court. In Niranjan Panja v. State of West Bengal[12], the court held that the proximity between the time of death and the last seen together time is essential to establish the liability of the accused. The last seen doctrine shifts the onus onto the accused to establish their innocence.[13]
Abnormal Conduct of Accused
This is another form of circumstantial evidence. Identifying the abnormal conduct of the individual who has been accused is imperative in a dispute however, this alone will not qualify as a ground for conviction. Like the last seen doctrine, this doctrine too requires corroborative evidence. Providing false alibis, inability to disclose the location, or any other type of information which destroys the ‘presumption of innocence’ amounts to abnormal conduct. This doctrine plays a key role in linking various circumstances to the principal fact.[14]
Section 106 of the Act
As mentioned earlier, the Indian Evidence Act does not define circumstantial evidence. Section 106 of the Act, however, gives a form of circumstantial evidence. According to this section, the individual under suspicion bears the burden of proving a fact of which they have special or exclusive knowledge. This too is a form of circumstantial evidence as it cannot prove the guilt of the accused. It requires the circumstances surrounding it to support it to establish it as a fact. For example, in criminal law, the burden of proving innocence would be on the individual who found a body in their house. Similarly in the case of civil law, if an individual was unable to produce their ticket while traveling in a train, the onus lies on this individual to show that they had purchased a ticket and thus prove their innocence. If the individual is unable to establish their innocence satisfactorily, they will be convicted.
Indian Perspective
The Indian perspective on this form of evidence is largely consistent with that of the international perspective. There is not much ambiguity in this particular concept. If the evidence presented can be linked to the principal fact in such a way to be acknowledged as a fact individually, then it would be acceptable. In the State of Manipur v. Okram Jiten Singh[15], it was held that conviction cannot arise from circumstantial evidence if there is a missing link in the chain of events to conclusively prove the guilt of the individual (who is the accused in this case). The key phrase here is ‘to conclusively prove the guilt of the accused.’ If there exists a missing link in the evidence provided, however, it is not integral to proving the guilt of the individual, or in other words, it is not related to the principal fact, then the evidence would still be accepted before the court. In Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh,[16] the court held that the cumulative result of all the circumstances provided must “unerringly point to the guilt of the accused.”
It is often understood that direct evidence alone can lead to a conviction. However, on the contrary, circumstantial evidence plays an integral role in conviction, and in most disputes, it is the only kind of evidence that exists. Courts have often ruled that circumstantial evidence can qualify as the sole criteria for conviction. In Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir,[17] it was held that if the essentials of circumstantial evidence are met, it can serve as the only basis for conviction. This position was reinforced by the court in Umedbhai v. State of Gujarat.[18] It was held here that in absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can serve as the sole basis for conviction.
Two landmark cases of India that are heavily dependent on circumstantial evidence are that of Priyadarshini Matoo[19] and Jessica Lal.[20] Here, there was almost no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the individual who was accused however, the circumstances provided enough corroborative evidence to establish guilt thereby leading to the accused individual’s conviction.
In the State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini,[21] Justice Wadhwa stated that circumstantial evidence is governed by the rule according to which “the circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which only the irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.” This was also held in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh,[22] which essentially stated that there should be no ground left for the innocence of the accused to be determined if he is to be convicted.
A unique perspective found in many Indian cases is the integral role of motive in circumstantial evidence. In Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand,[23] it was held by the court that “direct proof of common intention is rarely available.”[24] If sufficient motive on the part of the individual accused of committing the crime can be proved, it can serve as evidence as well.[25] However, establishing motive is not a sine qua non for proving the guilt of the accused. If clear and strong evidence can be found that by itself establish guilt, then motive need not be established separately.[26]
International Perspective
The circumstantial evidence test is largely applied in almost every country. Common Law countries mostly apply this principle however, the United States seems to have some ambiguity regarding the same. In Holland v. United States, [27] the U. S Supreme Court held that “circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial (direct) evidence.” Some courts consider the circumstantial evidence test to simply be an extension of the reasonable doubt test. Some others feel that the former puts a huge amount of pressure on the state in comparison to the latter. Additionally, they believe that “an inference based on an inference cannot support a conviction.”[28]
In the case of international cases, the Corfu Channel case and the Crime of Genocide case are two landmark cases in this aspect. It is a great example as to why circumstantial evidence is considered inferior to direct evidence. Both the cases were similar however, in the first case, the UK had strong circumstantial evidence that Albania failed to counter. Similarly, in the Crime of Genocide case, Serbia presented numerous documents as direct evidence to counter Bosnia’s claims. Additionally, in the first case, the court expressly permitted the UK to adopt “a more liberal recourse” but gave no such permission to Bosnia in the Crime of Genocide case. Thus, how strong the evidence is, is much more relevant in comparison to the category under which it falls.[29]
Like India, most countries accept that circumstantial evidence must be such that a hypothesis of the innocence of the accused cannot be inferred from it at any stage. “It must appear that the inference of guilt is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts and that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”[30]
Conclusion
Circumstantial evidence is more of a form of deductive reasoning than against a form of evidence. Through it, a myriad of circumstances is put together to infer a conclusion. As mentioned earlier, strong enough evidence that happens to be circumstantial is enough to convict an individual who is accused or to establish liability against them, as the case may be. Neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence is superior to one another. It is a well-accepted notion that the strength of the evidence is what matters in determining the judgment of a specific dispute.
References:
[1] Amar Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi) SCC Online SC 826 (2020).
[2] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, §3, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
[3] Anushka, Circumstantial Evidence, Law Times Journal (Apr. 26, 2021, 12:03 PM), https://lawtimesjournal.in/circumstantial-evidence/.
[4] Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence in a Criminal Case, 55 Col. L. Rev. 549, 558 (1955).
[5] Prakash Wasti, Evidence Law 58 (4th ed.).
[6] Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence in a Criminal Case, 55 Col. L. Rev. 549, 551 (1955).
[7] Feroz Pathan, Circumstantial Evidence: A Herculean Task for Prosecution, The Daily Guardian (Apr. 26, 2021, 2:20 PM), https://thedailyguardian.com/circumstantial-evidence-a-herculean-task-for-prosecution/.
[8] Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra AIR SC 1184 (2008).
[9] Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR SC 1622 (2984).
[10] Barbara Shapiro, Circumstantial Evidence: Of Law, Literature, and Culture, 5 Yale J. L. & Human 219, 231 (1993).
[11] Anushka, Circumstantial Evidence, Law Times Journal (Apr. 26, 2021, 5:07 PM), https://lawtimesjournal.in/circumstantial-evidence/.
[12] Niranjan Panja v. State of West Bengal 6 SCC 525 (2010).
[13] Anushka, Circumstantial Evidence, Law Times Journal (Apr. 26, 2021, 6:21 PM), https://lawtimesjournal.in/circumstantial-evidence/.
[14] Id.
[15] State of Manipur v. Okram Jiten Singh SCC Online Gau 123 (2004).
[16] Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh 6 SCC 205 (2001).
[17] Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir SCC Online J&K 928 (2017).
[18] Umedbhai v. State of Gujarat AIR SC 424 (1978).
[19] Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI 9 SCC 747 (2010).
[20] Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) 6 SCC 1 (2010).
[21] State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini 5 SCC 253 (1999).
[22] Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh SCR 1091 (1952).
[23] Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand 5 SCC 679 (2004).
[24] Dr. K. I. Vibhute, P. S. A. Pillai IPC 204 (14th ed. 2019).
[25] Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana 10 SCC 464 (2012).
[26] Yunis v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1 SCC 425 (2003).
[27] Holland v. United States 348 U. S. 121 (1954).
[28] Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence in a Criminal Case, 55 Col. L. Rev. 549, 551 (1955).
[29] Michael P. Scharf & Margaux Day, The International Court of Justice’s Treatment of Circumstantial Evidence and Adverse Inferences, 13 Chi. J. Int’l L. 123, 143 (2012).
[30] People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024 (1984).
0 Comments