All About Circumstantial Evidence

Introduction:

The law of evidence places a lot of emphasis on circumstantial evidence, but other phrases do crop up occasionally. It is beneficial to review the fundamentals of proof so that you have a basic idea of what direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are. As it will demonstrate, historically, there were some rather major variations in how the law would treat this kind of evidence. Today, such distinctions are largely no longer relevant, but since these terms are still used so frequently, it's a good idea to grasp what they imply and the ramifications of using them.

Concept of Circumstantial Evidence:

As primary evidence or eyewitness testimony for the crime committed may or may not be accessible, circumstantial evidence is frequently introduced in criminal courts to prove the guilt of the accused. Bentham claimed that witnesses serve as the "eyes and ears" of the law. The circumstantial evidence accurately depicts what would have actually occurred. Testimonies are not always reliable since there is a chance for fear-based antagonism and because the opposing party frequently tempts witnesses. As a result, the witnesses' accounts of the events lose some of their credibility. As a result, circumstantial evidence is useful in establishing the veracity of the witnesses' accounts of the events.

Contrary to what is really portrayed in television courtroom dramas, circumstantial evidence has a much different role in legal proceedings. Such depictions give the general public the impression that the evidence is rational. Deduction is logical reasoning based on principles for a particular claim, as opposed to reasoning deduction.

When evaluated in isolation, circumstantial evidence may appear to be no different from other facts, but when considered in relation to the relevant facts, it either supports or refutes those facts.

One such piece of evidence is a person's actions following a crime being committed. It is highly likely that the suspect is the one who committed the crime if a theft has been reported and shortly after the incident the prime suspect is seen going on a shopping spree and purchasing pricey products. Contrary to popular belief, the accused can be found guilty based solely on circumstantial evidence as long as there is a clear connection between the crime and the defendant. However, this practise is discouraged since most criminal cases lack direct evidence due to their criminal nature.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Holland v. The United States that indirect evidence is equivalent to direct evidence, hence both types of evidence are admissible concurrently. The admissibility of circumstantial evidence has been thoroughly examined in the instances of Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Matoo.

Overview of Circumstantial Evidence in History

Circumstantial evidence has a long history, going all the way back to the Roman legal system, where the function of indirect evidence was a little bit different. At the time, circumstantial evidence played a big part in expanding the investigation into the crime. An appropriate example is when a census reveals that if numerous people with the same surname reside in the same neighbourhood, the affiliation and ties between them can be inferred with the aid of the individuals' ages and genders.

Essentials of Circumstantial Evidence

A person should thoroughly assess the evidence with regard to its admissibility before producing it in court since evidence has a significant role to play in granting justice to those who seek it. If the requirements listed below are met, it is possible to be found guilty purely on the strength of circumstantial evidence;

•  It should be demonstrated under what conditions the guilt is established.
• The evidence should support the idea that the accused is guilty.
• The evidence supporting guilt should be unambiguous in nature.
• The situation being emphasised must rule out any other likely explanations aside from proving guilt.
• The evidence must establish the accuser's guilt above a reasonable doubt.

Scope

Sometimes the truth emerges abruptly and without much clear proof. In these situations, the major event must be rebuilt in front of the court using supporting evidence such as the event's cause or effects. Sometimes circumstances speak just as loudly as concrete proof. For instance, a road touches a sleepy tiny settlement and then terminates there. Periodically, the village driver of the lorry travels there to spend the night. On the same night the truck arrived, a villager's body was discovered by the side of the road.There is some disagreement about whether he was initially carried by a car for a short distance before one wheel ran over him according to the position of his body and the severity of his wounds. There was no mist, rain, or dust storm to obscure vision. From these facts, some can be confidently assumed as a matter of probability, while many more can be reliably inferred. It is clear from the data that the village vehicle was responsible and that it must have been handled carelessly.

It was deemed insufficient when circumstantial evidence only revealed that the accused and deceased were seen together the night before Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab case.The Kerala High Court has stated that the court is not rendered useless in a murder case just because the pathologist performing the autopsies is unable to provide his professional judgement regarding the reason of the person's death. On the basis of further circumstantial evidence that the accused already possesses as a result of the investigation, it is still possible to convict them. In Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, circumstantial evidence that showed a continuous and complete sequence of events leading to the rape and murder of a seven-year-old daughter of the accused was used to sustain the conviction and death sentence.

The risks of employing circumstantial evidence include:

• There is a chance of drawing conclusions too quickly.
• The jury instructions are helpful in highlighting the danger of this kind of evidence.
• The jury should be reminded during the instructions that the only reasonable inference from the facts should be that the defendant is guilty.

When presenting circumstantial evidence, one should not draw too hastily of a judgement; instead, one should consider all of the possible outcomes. The conclusion one wants to draw is more likely supported by other circumstantial evidence, since the more circumstantial evidence one can assemble, the more strongly a thesis can be supported.For example, by demonstrating that the road is wet, which is one piece of circumstantial evidence, the fact that it was cloudy and people were carrying umbrellas, which is another piece of circumstantial evidence, and the fact that it usually rains at that time of year are all circumstantial evidence that the rain was falling on that day even though no one could see it. The accumulation of circumstantial evidence can be a potent instrument in the evidentiary reasoning process.

Case Law

• Ravindra Prakash Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 

The respondent in this case, who was put on trial for the alleged murder of his wife Smt. Kamlesh by Saharanpur, sprinkled kerosene oil on the body before setting it ablaze to destroy any evidence of the crime in order to shield himself from prosecution. He faced charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for the aforementioned claims. The judge decided:

•  In the example below, the court should establish the facts from which the conclusion was reached.
• On the basis of the collection of circumstantial evidence presented as evidence, the circumstances should be of a decisive type, that is, indisputable by the court.
• Every fact that is established must be consistent with the guilt hypothesis alone, not with the accuser's innocence.
• Moral certainty should determine the conditions and rule out the possibility of anyone other than the accused person being guilty.

Conclusion

Direct evidence is in no way superior to circumstantial evidence. They are effective at establishing a fact that supports or contradicts the in-question fact. The behaviour of the accused post- or before the crime committed can provide the corroboration they want. If the court cannot find that the circumstances leading to the fact are conclusive, it must closely evaluate both the direct and indirect evidence and identify the missing chain of events.