CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL

LAW AND CIVIL LAW

EXAMPLES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

AND CIRCUMSTANCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it

to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion
directlyi.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation
to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not
guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection,
so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more
strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving
circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative
explanations have been ruled out.
Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence.
A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendants firearm killed
the victim gives circumstantial evidence from which the defendants guilt may be
inferred. (Note that an inference of guilt could be incorrect if the person who actually
fired the weapon was somebody else.)
On the other hand, the additional circumstantial evidence of the defendant's
fingerprint on the trigger would dovetail with this piece to provide corroborating
evidence.
The two areas in which circumstantial evidence is of most importance are civil and
criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.

Civil law
Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or refute liability. It is
usually the most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases
and road traffic accidents. Forensic analysis of skid marks can frequently allow a
reconstruction of the accident. By measuring the length of such marks and using
dynamic analysis of the car and road conditions at the time of the accident, it may be
found that a driver underestimated his or her speed. Forensic science and forensic
engineering are common as much in civil cases as in criminal.

Criminal law
Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to
establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. With obvious exceptions (immature,
incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try to avoid generating direct
evidence. Hence the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to
prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly." The same goes
for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to
obtain punitive damages.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct

evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a
fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof
of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts
E.g., 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 or jury may infer that
Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence
in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually not as good as direct evidence
(an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because it is easy to make the wrong
inference
Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after
getting it back.

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection

between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case.
Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.

CIRCUMSTANCES

The particulars which accompany a fact.

The facts proved are either possible or impossible, ordinary and probable, or
extraordinary and improbable, recent or ancient; they may have happened near us or
afar off; they are public or private, permanent or transitory, clear and simple or
complicated; they are always accompanied by circumstances which more or less
influence the mind in forming a judgment. And in some instances these
circumstances assume the character of irresistible evidence; where, for example, a
woman was found dead in a room with every mark of having met with a violent
death, the presence of another person at the scene of action was made manifest by
the bloody mark of a left hand visible on her left arm.
These points ought to be carefully examined in order to form a correct opinion. The
first question ought to be; is the fact possible? If so, are there any circumstances
which render it impossible? If the facts are impossible, the witness ought not to be
credited. If, for example, a man should swear that he saw the deceased shoot
himself with his own pistol and upon an examination of the ball which killed him it
should be found too large to enter into the pistol, the witness ought not to be
credited. Or if one should swear that another had been guilty of an impossible crime.

Circumstantial Evidence: Realm of Reality

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to decide the fate of accused by
establishing guilt or innocence through reasoning. According to Bentham witnesses
are the "eyes and ears of justice". But testimony of witnesses is not always credible;
therefore, facts are provable not only by witnesses but also by circumstances.
In words of Stephen Leacock,
My evidence for this assertion is all indirect, its what we call circumstantial evidence
the same the people are hang for. Giving the importance of circumstantial evidence
in criminal cases and discussing the present role of circumstantial evidence, in
nailing the two most leading cases, of Manu Sharma and Santosh Kumar, the same
evidence that the trial court had dismissed as being insufficient or inadequate for
conviction. Although it seems self-evident, that meaning of evidence must be
articulated first, before the next steps in the analytical process may be pursued.
Historical Background of Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened but it
is often useful as a guide for further investigation. An example from genealogy would
be that if census records showed several people with the same surname lived at the
same address, likely relationships could be inferred from age and gender.
Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence
through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or or
deny liability
Analysis of the term Evidence
Evidence" is the raw material which a judge or adjudicator uses to reach "findings of
fact". The findings of fact that the evidence generates are - for all their flaws - "what

happened" for all intents and purposes of the legal proceeding. If you do not agree
with the fact-finding that has been made (or even if you know it to be wrong),
recognize that the rules of evidence are the best rules that law know of to reach the
necessary goal of fact-finding
In its original sense the word evidence signifies, the state of being evident i.e. plain,
apparent or notorious. But It is applied to that which tends to render evidence or
generate proof . The fact sought to be proved is called the principal fact; the fact
which tends to establish it, the evidentiary fact

Analysis of the Term Circumstantial Evidence

Television show lawyers speak a lot about "circumstantial evidence". "Circumstantial
evidence" however is not so much a type of evidence as it is a
logical principle of deduction. Deduction is reasoning from general known principles
to a specific proposition
Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be
used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony
presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly
establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to
prove.
An example of circumstantial evidence is the behaviour of a person around the time
of an alleged offense. If someone were charged with theft of money, and were then
seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be
regarded as circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt. Similarly if a witness
arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a gunshot to find someone standing
over a corpse and holding a smoking pistol, the evidence is circumstantial; since the
person may merely be a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer
dropped it. The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial
evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on
circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in Holland v. United States.
that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct]
evidence" Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little
practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials. Similarly in

India the two leading case of Priyadarshani Matoo and Jessica Lal were heavily
based on circumstantial evidence.
Evidence as per English Law
According to Stephens the word evidence is used in three senses
1) words uttered, and thing exhibited in Court,
2) facts proved by those words or things , which are regarded as ground word of
inference as to other facts not so proved, and
3) relevancy of a particular fact to matter under inquiry

Evidence as per Indian law

Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 defines evidence which is more definite
meaning, wiz, the first one. Evidence thus signifies only the instruments by means of
which relevant facts are brought before the Court .Evidence is generally divided into
three categories facts are brought before the Court. Evidence is generally divided
into three categories:
1) oral or personal
2) documentary and,
3) material or real.
The definition of evidence must be read together with that of proved. The combine
results of these two definition is that evidence under the Indian Evidence Act which is
not only the medium of proof but there are in addition to this , number of other
matter which the Courts has to take into consideration, when forming its conclusion.
Thus the definition of evidence in the Indian evidence Act is incomplete and narrow.
In State Of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, the Supreme Court has held that
under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, besides oral and documentary evidence,
electronic record can also be admitted as evidence. The Court further stated that
evidence ruled in criminal matters could be by way of electronic records, which
would also include videoconferencing ,Hence what is no evidence
a) a confession or the statement of one accessed under Section 342,CrP.C
b) demeanour of witness(section 361, Cr.P.C ,O18,R,12,C.P.C)
c)local investigation or inspection (O.26,R,9);(O18,R18,C.P.C;sections 293 ,
539B,CrP.C )
d) Facts judicially noticeable without proof (Section 56 ,57 Act)

e) Material objects(Section60)
Further coming to the subject, English text writers has divide evidence into
a) Direct evidence
b) Indirect and circumstantial evidence

Direct Evidence
In this sense direct evidence is the evidence is that which goes expressly to the very
point in question and proves it, if believed without aid from inference or deductive
reasoning, e.g., eye witness to a murder is direct evidence

Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence
is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The
distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the
obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or ), nearly all criminals are careful
to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent.
Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly," the
prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes for
tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain
punitive damages.

Circumstantial Evidence: Soul Basis Of Conviction

Ordinarily circumstantial evidence cannot be regarded as direct evidence, and with
this regard, there have been a popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence
is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct
evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal
prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are
frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial
evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to
suppress or fabricate.
Thus the judiciary in following landmark judgment has ruled the important role played
by circumstantial evidence which can later become the sole bases of conviction.
In Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar wherein it has been held as follows:What evidentiary value or weight has to be attached to such statement, must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In a
proper case, it may be permissible to convict a person only on the basis of a dying
declaration in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case........
As pointed out by Fazal Ali, J, in V.C. Shukla vs. State" in most cases it will be
difficult to get direct evidence of the agreement, but a conspiracy can be inferred
even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an
agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. As per Wadhwa, J.
in Nalini's case
The well known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every
incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and "the
circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible
conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other
hypothesis against the guilt is possible.

Similarly in the famous case of Bodh Raj V. State of Jammu &Kashmir, Court held
that circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for conviction provided the
conditions as stated below is fully staisfied.Condition are:
1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused;
3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency ;
a. That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty , actually exclude every
hypothesis expect the one proposed to be proved.

'That I know the defendant is guilty, my hands are tied. As a judge, I can only go by
the evidence provided by the investigative agencies.' These were the words of
Additional Sessions Judge G P Thareja, who acquitted Santosh Kumar Singh, Delhi
University law student who committed rape and murder of Priyadharshani Matto. But
However the Delhi High court said that the overall analysis of the circumstances
proved beyond doubt and the evidence is unimpeachable that Singh has committed
rape and murder. "We are of the view to convict him (Singh) under section 302
(murder) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code," the Bench said. The Court
observed that the trial court verdict was "perverse" and shocked the judicial
conscience. The court said the evidence was incompatible with Singh's plea of
"We have no hesitation in holding that Manu Sharma is guilty of an offence under
Section 302 (murder) of IPC for having committed the murder of Jessica Lal ... As
also under Section 27 of the Arms Act," the Bench said allowing the appeal of the
Delhi Police.
"In the totality of circumstances adduced from material on record, the judgment
under challenge appears to us to be an immature assessment

Conclusion
The whole discussion essentially brings us back to the fundamental question of
whether Circumstantial evidence is a sole base of conviction or not. Undeniable the
conclusion would be affirmative in true spirit .Undoubtedly; circumstantial evidence

plays a pivotal role in criminal case. heavily based on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence" which helped prosecution nail in various landmark cases
mentioned above was heavily based on circumstantial evidence.
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important
than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered
more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on
circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or
indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over
direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate. Where the case is
not based entirely or substantially on circumstantial evidence, a modified direction in
respect of circumstantial evidence may be appropriate when summing-up in respect
of an element of the offence which is based entirely or substantially on circumstantial
evidence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Circumstantial Evidence: Death, Life, And Justice In A Southern Town

By Pete Earley
Indian Evidence Law By Justice Muneer
Supreme court cases
www.wikipedia.com
Law of evidence bare act
www.indianlegalservices.com