Circumstantial Evidence in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)

When someone commits a crime, it is the usual course to avoid any eyewitnesses, unless it is an act of provocation or crime committed by numerous people. When a person kills another, if someone witnesses the incident and records a  video, he/she becomes the prime witness and may admit the facts before the Court, and show the electronic evidence in the form of a video. However, if there is no direct witness of a crime and there is no video, how to prove? Commission of crime cannot be denied, but to prove who committed the crime is delegated upon the circumstances. The general rule is that “A man or a woman may lie, but the circumstances do not lie.” Here, we are seeking to understand what is circumstantial evidence in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – BSA, and its requirements. 

What is Circumstantial Evidence?

There is direct evidence which directly proves the commission of an offence by a particular suspect. However, there are times when direct evidence is not available to catch the culprit. When the direct target is not available but the circumstance makes a chain which hints at or directly associated with the facts in issue leading to a satisfactory conclusion towards the claims of either parties in a criminal case, those are circumstantial evidence. Since the circumstantial evidence make a chain, it is important that the chain is so conclusive and sufficient that it only shows the guilt of the accused, and there is no scope for doubt or any other conclusion. 

Circumstantial Evidence in Indian Evidence Act

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act provided what evidence meant and included. The Act did not expressly addressed the circumstantial evidence. However, in the absence of direct evidence, the relevant facts which prove the circumstances which led to the commission of offence become all the way relevant in such cases. Such circumstantial evidence helps Courts catch the convicts.

Circumstantial Evidence in BSA Section

Just like the Indian Evidence Act, the circumstantial evidence in Bharatiya Sakhshya Adhiniyam has not been expressly defined or addressed. Section 2(k) of BSA defines what is ‘relevant’ in evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, relevancy of circumstances is all that matters while linking the chain to prove the guilt. Dying declaration under BSA Section 26(a) is an example of description of circumstances which led to the death of the person. 

Examples of Circumstantial Evidence

1. A and B were indulged in a heated argument in the afternoon. The whole episode was witnessed by X who was present in the adjacent building. X also saw A leaving the place aggressively, trying not to be seen by anyone. A couple of hours later, X comes to know about the death of B, while the Police suspect murder. The circumstances hereby suggest that A killed B, unless any concrete evidence is available to prove otherwise. 
2. Z used to live with two flatmates in a city. On a fine day, when the cleaner entered the house which was unlocked by one of the flatmates, she found Z lying in a pool of blood with a knife lying nearby. The Police did not find any evidence of someone escaping since there was no window and the only way to exit the apartment was through the door, which was opened by the flatmate while the other one had been out of station for a couple of weeks. Here, the circumstances suggest that the flatmate who opened the door was the prime suspect, unless it was proved to be a suicide where Z killed herself. 
3. X and Y were friends. On this particular day, X came home to pick Y and both went to canal side as they usually did. Someone saw Y roaming around nearby with a pistol. A couple of hours later, X’s body was found dead at the canal banks with a gunshot injury. When asked, Y had no clue about what happened to Y. Since the two had left together and Y was seen with a pistol at the same time when the incident took place, circumstantial evidence pointed towards Y to have committed the murder, unless otherwise proved through evidence. 

Last Seen Theory

In cases where there is no direct evidence available to decide the conviction, prosecution usually relies upon the theory of ‘last seen together’. It reflects that if a person was last seen with someone after which the said person was found dead, there are chances that the one who met him/her a few minutes before may be the person who killed him/her. The circumstantial evidence in BSA in such matters reflect that the deceased met only the accused and there is least possibility that someone else committed the crime in the meanwhile. In similar cases, if the prosecution is able to prove that the accused was last seen with the deceased, the burden of proof shifts upon the accused to prove further about his/her innocence. 

Chain of Evidence

When it comes to circumstantial evidence in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the chain of transactions is the key to convince the Court while proving the case. Since circumstantial evidence are indirect in nature, they individually do not prove the relevant facts. It is the chain created with several transactions or circumstances which leads to proving a fact in issue. Courts have time and again reiterated that the chain of circumstantial evidence should be so complete that nothing but the guilt of the accused should be inferred. In case there are two inferences possible, one proving the guilt and the other leaving some scope for his/her innocence, the one which supports the innocence of the accused has to be believed.  

Five Golden Principles of Circumstantial Evidence

Since circumstantial evidence are sought to be the most complex type of evidence, the Courts have to be extra-cautious while considering the same. The Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) established five principles of circumstantial evidence which were reiterated in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984):

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. 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 Apex Court reflected upon the importance of the above stated rules for Courts deciding the case and expressed that “These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti.” These principles assist the Trial Courts dealing with criminal cases wherein direct evidence is not available and there is only circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.