Circumstantial Evidence

Jump to:navigation, search

Circumstantial Evidence is all evidence that is of indirect nature.

Best, Pres. 246; Id. 12: When the existence of the principal fact is deduced from
evidentiary by a process of probable reasoning, the evidence and proof are said to be
presumptive.
Burrill: All presumptive evidence is circumstantial because necessarily derived from or
made up of circumstances, but all circumstantial evidence is not presumptive. The proof
of various facts or circumstances which usually attend the main fact in dispute, and
therefore tend to prove its existence, or to sustain, by their consistency, the hypothesis
claimed. Or as otherwise defined, it consists in reasoning from facts which are known or
proved to establish such as are conjectured to exist.

Contents

[hide]

1 Related Cases / Recent Cases / Case Laws

2 Related Terms
3 Related Topics
4 Legal Systems on Evidence

Related Cases / Recent Cases / Case Laws

Pawan @ Rajinder Singh and Another v State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction,
Criminal Appeal No. 2194 OF 2014, Supreme Court of India judgment dated March 8,
2017: While, in general, though the motive of crime is not necessarily required to be
proved, in a case where the appellants are named on suspicion by informant in the First
Information Report and which does not contain names as witnesses but who had seen the
occurrence), the motive appears to be relevant fact
Milligan v. State, 109 Fla. 219, 147 So. 260, 263: Evidence of indirect nature
Brown v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 449, 72 S.W.2d 269, 270: It is direct evidence as to facts
deposed to but indirect as to the factum probandum
People v. Steele, 37 N.Y.S.2d 199, 200, 179 Misc. 587; Wolff v. Employers Fire Ins. Co.,
282 Ky. 824, 140 S.W.2d 640, 645, 130 A.L.R. 682; Scott v. State, 57 Ga.App. 489, 195
S.E. 923, 924: Evidence of facts or circumstances from which the existence or
nonexistence of fact in issue may be inferred
Hatfield v. Levy Bros., 18 Ca1.2d 798, 117 P. 2d 841, 845: Inferences drawn from facts
proved
Hercules Powder Co., v. Nieratko, 113 N.J.L. 188, 173 A. 606, 610: Preponderance of
probabilities
 People v. Taddio, 292 N.Y. 488, 55 N.E. 2d 749, 750: Process of decision by which court
or jury may reason from circumstances known or proved, to establish by inference the
principal fact
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Lonas, 255 Ky. 717, 75 S.W.2d 348, 350: It means that
existence of principal facts is only inferred from circumstances.
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 :
1991 SCC (CRI) 407: The Supreme Court of India held that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied: (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10)

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently
and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence.

Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 172
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 607: The circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances
must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime.
Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957: Dealing with
the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been
emphasised that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of
guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to
be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and
further the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected
with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SCW 640 = AIR 1992 SC 840: It is
the duty of the Court to take care while evaluating circumstantial evidence. If the
evidence adduced by the prosecution is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in
favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstances relied upon must be
established and the cumulative effect of the established facts must lead to a singular
hypothesis that the accused is guilty.
Ram Singh v. Sonia and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1218:
o In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a
danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof.
 o The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events
have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as
to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.
o When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the
other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubts.
Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 90: In regard to principles pertaining to
the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, it is emphasised that whether a chain is
complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and
no universal yardstick should ever be attempted.