Author: Shreyanshi patra , a student at, Madhusudan law University, Cuttack ,Odisha
To the Point
Criminal trials are exclusively structured or based on circumstantial evidences demands scrupulousness. Each and every facts are to be heard and to relate them meticulously, as circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence inferred from the facts and surrounding circumstances. Indian criminal justice system is unambiguous or indisputable that mere suspicion or conjecture cannot supersede the substantial proof. Where the prosecution fails to set up an unbroken chain of circumstances ,the benefit of doubt is given to the accused by the court infact the court is duty bound to do so that might result to an acquittal. The law demands unbroken chain of circumstances where the prosecution case does not have any direct evidence but only circumstantial evidence any inconsistency results in grant of benefit of doubt to the accused.
The circumstantial evidence can solely lead to conviction if there is an unbroken chain of circumstances which proves the accused guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Any broken link or broken chain in circumstances can collapse the prosecution case and can lead to acquittal from the suspicion. The prosecution is duty bound to prove that the circumstances are interlinked and beyond any reasonable doubt proves the guilt of the accused. A person cannot be convicted solely on mere suspicion no matter how strong the suspicion is if there’s a single inconsistency between the circumstances that does not lead to a conclusion. By examining relevant case law this article aims to explain how a broken circumstantial evidence leads to acquittal from suspicion.
Abstract
In the criminal justice system, evidence plays a vital role may it be of anykind. But in cases where the conviction is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence the court mandates an unbroken chain of circumstances. so, a minor inconsistency or missing link can disassemble the case of prosecution that might result to an acquittal.
This article critically examines the concept ruling the circumstantial evidence, The impact of broken chain of circumstances ,the judicial standards set by the courts in judgments and the case laws related to circumstantial evidence.
Use of Legal Jargon
In criminal trials the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove the accused is culpable beyond any reasonable doubt. Fair prosecutions case is solely based on circumstantial evidence the court mandates a conclusive chain of circumstances.
As the principle of presumption of innocence has to be followed by the court infact the court is duty bound to presume that a person charged with an offence is innocent unless is proven guilty therefore if the prosecution fails to do prove the guilt of the accused through the complete chain of circumstances the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused. A broken chain of circumstances is incapable of leading to a single inference. Consequently, there comes a transition from suspicion to acquittal, as no one can be convicted merely based on suspicion no matter how strong the suspicion is.
The Proof
According to section 104 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam ,2023 the burden of proof always lies on the party that has contended the facts of the case that is the prosecution . Since circumstantial evidence plays a key role in criminal jurisprudence to draw an inference in a case where direct evidence or substantial evidence is not available. The Supreme Court has consistently highlighted the rules in terms of circumstantial evidences. The cases that are solely based on circumstantial evidence the burden of proof on the prosecution gets heavier as the prosecution does not only have to prove the circumstances individually but also is duty bound to prove their logical and legal interconnection.
The rules highlighted by the supreme court on the above :
Each circumstances must be individually proved.
There must be a complete chain of circumstances
The chain must prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
In case of any missing link in the chain of circumstances and if it is not convulsive or decisive in nature consequently, the entire case of the prosecution disintegrate.
Case Laws
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
This is the andmark judgement where the supreme court laid down five golden principles popularly known as punchsheel of circumstantial evidence:
The proved circumstances should point only towards the guilt of the accused.
The circumstances must be conclusive and decisive not speculative in nature.
The guilt of the accused must be proved out of the chain beyond any reasonable doubt.
The circumstances must form a continuous and unbroken chain.
If the prosecution fails to satisfy any one of the above mentioned principles then the court is duty bound to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused that might lead to acquittal.
2. Navneethakrishnan v. State(2018)
The supreme court in the case of Navneethakrishnan v state held that the absence of link between the circumstances establishes a reasonable doubt for the conviction of the accused.
3. Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025).
Dashwanth v state of Tamil Nadu is the very recent judgement passed by the supreme court. In this case the supreme court granted acquittal to the accused on the ground of unbroken chain of circumstances. The court held that mere suspicion cannot replace the substantial proof required in the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
The circumstantial evidence acts as a “double-edged sword” in the criminal justice system i.e. as a blessing as well as a curse for the prosecution also for the accused. The circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction when is complete and conclusive in nature but can also lead to an acquittal where the chain of circumstances is broken .
this is the condition where a person suspected to be an accused is granted acquittal on the grounds of broken chain of circumstances. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that mere suspicion does not matter how strong it is cannot take the place of substantial or legal proof in the criminal justice system.
The Supreme Court has therefore mandated complete chain of circumstances, a broken chain of circumstances is inconsistent to draw any kind of inference in a criminal case. A broken chain inevitably results in acquittal and is considered justified.
This transition from suspicion to acquittal on the grounds of broken chain protects the principle of “presumption of innocence” and the principle that “no innocent should suffer though number of guilty persons escape.”
FAQS
Importance of circumstantial evidence?
The circumstantial evidence plays a vital role in the criminal jurisprudence then date evidence or substantial evidence is not available the conviction can be made based on the circumstantial evidence.
What does a broken chain of circumstances mean?
Change of circumstances means, where the circumstantial evidence is given to the court by the prosecution are not interlinked Does not don’t send me inference consequently not conclusive in nature.Any kind of missing link in the circumstances is popularly known as broken chain of circumstances.
Impact of broken chain of circumstances in criminal cases?
Where a case is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence is it is very important that the circumstances I interlinked they must form a complete change but in cases there the chain is broken the benefit of doubt is granted to the accused because the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused . Consequently the broken chain of circumstances might lead to an acquittal.
Can circumstantial evidence lead to conviction?
Yes the circumstantial evidence in suddenly lead to conviction there is an unbroken chain of circumstances and the circumstances are so interlink that proves the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
In which landmark judgement the supreme court laid down the five golden principles (punchsheel) of circumstantial evidences?
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984).
