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 behavior 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. 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 Evidence as per Indian law 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) Direct evidence
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in Holland v. United States .
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
Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 defines evidence which is more definite meaning, viz, 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.
a) a confession or the statement of one accessed under Section 342,CrP.C
b) demeanor 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
b) Indirect and circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial Evidence: Soul Basis Of Conviction 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:- 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:
Ordinarily circumstantial eidence 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.
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
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 accussed;
3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency ;
a. That the circumstances should, to a moral certanity , actually exclude every hypotheis expectthe one proposed to be proved.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Tags :Others
