Crimes are not committed with an announcement, and CCTV cameras are not available at every nook and corner. Hence, not every crime can be caught in camera to reflect who committed such crime. In fact, the more serious a crime is, the severe its punishment is. Therefore, usually there are several circumstances which lead the way for Courts to decide the case. But the question is – Is Circumstantial Evidence enough to Convict? There are several landmark judgments wherein the Supreme Court has answered this question. We have compiled the crucial Supreme Court decisions laying the foundation for admissibility of circumstantial evidence.
Can conviction be based on circumstantial evidence?
When Judges have to address the specific facts and circumstances to decide conviction for a crime, things are not much straightforward in terms of types of evidence available. There is no other way apart from keeping up with the circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court or any other Court cannot deny admissibility of circumstances, but conviction based on circumstantial evidence has to be fool proof. Given below are Supreme Court judgments on circumstantial evidence addressing the particulars of when it is enough to convict someone.
What is the golden rule of circumstantial evidence? – Panchsheel Test
Hanumant v. State of MP (1953)
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice led the five golden principles to constitute the “Panchsheel of proof for case based on circumstantial evidence”, as reflected below:
- The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established
- 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
- The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
- They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved
- 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.
Sharad Birdhichand v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
The Supreme Court followed the five golden principles enunciated in Hanumant’s case and concluded that the accused being found in possession of the poison was a crucial aspect to prove in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case reflected that it could be a case of murder by poison, or death by suicide. Thus, the Court found the prosecution case lacking in terms of requirements of criminal case resting purely on circumstantial evidence. Since the evidence reflected two views – either guilt of accused or leading to innocence, the Court extended the benefit of doubt.
Supreme Court Judgments on Circumstantial Evidence
Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)
“It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that 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 probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is.”
Laxman Prasad @Laxman v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)
“In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime.”
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat (2019)
While adding to the principles reiterated in Sharad Birdhichand (supra), the Supreme Court hinted towards another important aspect of lapse of time in the last seen theory. That is the time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased was found dead. The Apex Court required the said time lapse to be so minimal as to exclude any possibility of an intervening event of death at the hands of someone else.
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat (2019)
“It is well settled by now that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the Courts ought to have a conscientious approach and conviction ought to be recorded only in case all the links of the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link unless connected together to form a chain may suggest suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused.”
Kalu @LaxmiNarayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)
“Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character.”
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973)
“Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the 73 5 court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable”
