Question

Describe the manner in which circumstantial evidence is used in a criminal prosecution.

Answer 1

The word ‘Evidence’ has been derived from the Latin word ‘evidere’ which implies to show distinctly, to make clear to view or sight, to discover clearly, to make plainly certain, to certain, to ascertain, to prove.

(1)    All the statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under enquiry; such statements are called Oral evidence;

(2)   All the documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called documentary evidence;

The definition of Evidence given in this Act is very narrow because in this evidence comes before the court by two means only-

(1)   The statement of witnesses.

(2)   Documents including electronic records.

Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from which a person may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances which can be relied upon not as proving a fact directly but instead as pointing to its existence.

              Circumstantial evidence is based largely on inference and uses inductive reasoning.

             EXAMPLE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom.

Circumstantial evidence is more complex. A witness did not see the stabbing. The witness did see the defendant go into the house carrying a knife. The witness heard a scream inside the house and saw the defendant run out, not carrying the knife. The victim is later found inside with a knife in her back. A reasonable inference is that the defendant stabbed the victim. Whether that fact is true will determine if the defendant is guilty.

Weight of circumstantial evidence

It is a popular misconception that circumstantial evidence carries less weight or importance than direct evidence. This is only partly true. While direct evidence is generally seen as more powerful, most successful prosecutions rely greatly on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence because it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

The law draws no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance. Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the jury finds them to be.

Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturization of actual incident but the circumstances cannot fail. Therefore, many a times, it is aptly said that “men may tell lies, but circumstances do not”.

five golden principles of circumstantial evidence

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 only with the hypothesis of the guilt of 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 unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

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.

These five golden principles, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”