Author: Dishita Singh, Amity University Mumbai
ABSTRACT
The Term Evidence in respect to legal area means any information irrespective of nature which includes testimony, documents, and any physical objects used to approve or disapprove the facts in the case matter. ‘Evidence’ is described under the Section 2(1)(e) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 which further categorised into Oral and Documentary Evidence also Electronic Evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence depends upon the Relevancy and Relevancy of Facts which together needs a same transaction and chain that proves the legal facts in the case matter. It’s majorly considered after the core and direct evidence known as primary evidence. It traces to origin of the Roman System where it was used for investigation factor which explains “Men may tell lies, but circumstances do not”. Panchsheel known as Five Golden Principles describes the conviction that is based on Circumstantial Evidence.
TO THE POINT:
Evidence when it considers the circumstances it heavily depends upon the literal meaning of Relevant and Relevancy of Facts that describes surrounding circumstances facts considered legally Relevant to the principal fact in issue and also outlines how it’s connected to circumstances which divides into Motive, Preparation and Subsequent Conduct.
ESSENTIALS OF CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE:
1) Fact Infront of court does not itself give an inference about the offence of an action and it’s not only element required but allows the court to make the assumptions of that inferences bringing it close define other relevant facts in the case matter.
2) They can see the circumstances not very related to cause of action, but they indirectly point at cause of action.
FIVE GOLDEN PRINCIPLES (PANCHSHEEL TEST):
1) Need of fully established facts, the circumstances in which the conclusion can be inferred related to point of issue.
2) Facts established must have an analysis and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt means it should only infer that accused is guilty no any other hypothesis acceptable other than this inference.
3) Chain of evidence should be complete and should not leave any reasonable grounds to show that the act was not committed by the accused.
4) The facts considered should be conclusive in nature and ruling out other possibilities except the only one that to be proved, the accused is guilty.
5)Moral Inference means the human intention and probability should be high concluding that act must have been done by the accused.
There’s always ongoing debate between the direct evidenceand circumstantial evidence, but the priority will be always given to the direct evidence as they serves the prima facie evidence, which is required at the initial stage of proceedings, as it’s clear strong evidence but when it comes to circumstantial evidence it depends on the chain of events serves secondary help for the direct evidence.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON:
Evidence in relevance to (BSA) is eventually made of significant parts that explains the legal terminology of it in depth.
Section 3 – defines the existence and non-existence of two specific categories – Fact in Issue and Relevant Facts – no others, breaking down the meaning of fact, fact in issue, relevant fact and other parts irrelevant.
Section 4 – Relevancy of Facts forming part of same transaction – one of the core important sections for circumstantial evidence which also knowns as ‘Doctrine of Res Gestae’.
Section 21 – 26 – Describes the Admissibility criteria, admissions, confessions and statements by person who cannot be called as witnesses often known as ‘Hearsay Rule’ means the witnesses testimony should be direct when involved in case matter, testimony should not be by third person. But certain exceptions ruled out when that very witness is dead, not found or has become incapable of giving evidence. Exceptions like dying declaration, family relationship etc.
Section 54 – 55 – describes the criteria of oral evidence.
Section 56 – 72 – rules out the Documentary evidence that categorised into primary and secondary evidence under which Section 61-64-73 – rules out the electronic records and digital evidence.
THE PROOFS:
Judiciary emphasized the preservation of fundamentalevidentiary standards that includes chain of custody, relevance and fairness. The chain custody does involve the criteria that solves out the point of doubt and clears the path to direct the conclusion.
Section 63 which includes Electronic and digital evidence.Judiciary now focuses on this along with other categorised evidence because society is experiencing changed nature of crime.
Section 23 deals with expertise testimony from other domain having special knowledge which means judiciary upholds the relevancy not letting any stages of proceeding tamper it.
Presumption of facts and Burden of Proof which applies standardised presumptions legitimacy -Section 109 explains the shifting of burden for peculiar knowledge of a specific person, burden to proof the fact is on them that ensures fairness. Defences of ‘Alibi’ a latin term is subjected to serious cross-examination to outline if the facts are fully inconsistent with presence or actions of the accused at the crime scene.
CASE LAWS:
1)Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 4 SCC 116): Rulings established the five golden principles (Panchsheel) that the prosecution must satisfy the beyond a reasonable doubt to consider the conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence.
2)State of U.P Vs Ravindra Prakash Mittal (AIR 1992 SC 2045): The Supreme Court of India convicted husband for his wife’s murder using the entirely circumstances evidence enforcing that chain of circumstances must be complete and rule out any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
3) Nagendra Shah Vs State of Bihar (AIR 2021 10 SCC 725) : The case establishes when a case fully depends upon the circumstantial evidence, a false defences or misleading facts to cover the actual fact cannot be used to convict unless the prosecution have a complete and unbroken chain of events pointing out accused guilt.
3)Jessica Lal Murder Case: This case establishes the importance of Circumstantial evidence when direct evidence in this case matter turned hostile and absurd. Prosecution depends upon the chain of events and reasonable grounds that proves the presence of accused and act committed by him. The Supreme court rulings emphasizing the circumstantial evidence is only considered when it’s strong and conclusive, does have a credibility for acquittal of an accused.
CONCLUSION:
Hence, the importance of facts, relevancy, chain of events in same transaction supporting the direct evidence which is also categorised into oral, documentary and electronic evidence following each criterion to present, admit and confessed the same is crucial and essential part. Evidence do serves depth of case focusing on its legitimacy that should serve the fairness and equity for the same saving the legal and constitutional rights of an individual.
FAQ:
1)What does the last seen theory in relation to circumstantial evidence means?
2) Are the exceptions of Hearsay rules significantly justifyingmost of condition or is there should be changes in it?
3) Is Direct evidence can survive without circumstantial evidence?
