Sl.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench

No. Strength

12. The culpability of the appellant-accused, in the absence of any

direct evidence, has to be judged on the basis of the circumstances
enumerated above. The principles of law governing proof of a
criminal charge by circumstantial evidence would hardly require any
reiteration save and except that the circumstances on which the
prosecution relies must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and
such circumstances must be capable of giving rise to an inference
which is inconsistent with any other hypothesis except the guilt of
the accused. It is only in such an event that the conviction of the
accused, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence brought by the
prosecution, would be permissible in law. In this regard a reference
to the “five golden principles” enunciated by this Court in
SharadBirdhichandSarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 may
be recapitulated for which purpose para 153 of the judgment in the
above case may be usefully extracted below: (SCC p. 185)
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’
and ‘must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in
ShivajiSahabraoBobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where
the following observations were made: (SCC p. 807, para 19)
‘19. … Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the
mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’
(emphasis in original)
(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,
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

(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.”

Vadlakonda Lenin v. State of A.P., (2012) 12 SCC 260

10. ..............................................................................It is well to remember
that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there
must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.

HanumantGovindNargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SCR 343

3. The case against the appellant rests entirely on circumstantial
evidence. Therefore we have first to see whether the circumstances
put forward have been satisfactorily established. Next we have to see
whether all or any of those circumstances are incriminating in
character and whether the proved circumstances are such as to
establish a reasonably conclusive case against the appellant. Those
circumstances must not only be compatible with his guilt but they
should also be incompatible with his innocence. In other words they
must not be capable of suggesting any reasonable hypothesis other
than the guilt of the appellant. There must be a chain of
circumstances so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused; see
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) SCR 1091.
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

Prakash MahadeoGodse v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 3 SCC 741

7. In regard to the question of the effect and sufficiency of
circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, it is now
settled law that before conviction based solely on such evidence can
be sustained, it must be such as to be conclusive of the guilt of the
accused and must be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis
consistent with the innocence of the accused But this does not mean
that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon
circumstantial evidence alone, it must meet any and every hypothesis
suggested by the accused, however extravagant and fanciful it might
be. Before an accused can contend that a particular hypothesis to his
innocence has remained unexcluded by the facts proved against him,
the Court must be satisfied that the suggested hypothesis is
reasonable and not far-fetched. Further, it is not necessary that every
one of the proved facts must in itself be decisive of the complicity of
the accused or point conclusively to his guilt. It may be that a
particular fact relied upon by the prosecution may not be decisive in
itself, and yet if that fact, along with other facts which have been
proved tends to strengthen the conclusion of his guilt, it is relevant
and has to be considered. In other words, when deciding the question
of sufficiency, what the Court has to consider is the total cumulative
effect of all the proved facts each one of which reinforces the
conclusion of guilt, and if the combinedeffect of all those facts taken
together, is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the
conviction would be justified even though it may be that any one or
more of those facts by itself is not decisive.

State of A.P. v. I.B.S. Prasada Rao, (1969) 3 SCC 896

4.............................................................. It is a settled principle that in the
case of circumstantial evidence, the various circumstances should be
able to form a chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. In cases
where there is only circumstantial evidence, the court has to consider
the evidence adduced by the prosecution and decide whether the
evidence proves particular facts relevant for the purpose of the case
and when such facts are proved the question arises whether the facts
are capable of giving rise to any inference of the guilt of the accused
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

person or not. An inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved

fact is wholly consistent with the guilt of the accused and certainly he
is entitled to the benefit of doubt if the proved fact is consistent with
his innocence.
5. The law relating to circumstantial evidence, in clear and
unmistakable terms, has been laid down by this Court in various
decisions and it is sufficient to quote the statement of law made by
this Court in TanvibenPankajkumarDivetia v. State of Gujarat1: (SCC p.
185, para 45)
“45. The principle for basing a conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidences has been indicated in a number of decisions
of this Court and the law is well settled that each and every
incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable
and clinching evidence and the circumstances so 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. This Court has clearly sounded a note of
caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial
evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may
take the place of legal proof. 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. It has also been
indicated that 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. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the
danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for
sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral
certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a
long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and the same
divides conjectures from sure conclusions.”
6. These principles have been elaborately dealt with in
SharadBirdhichandSarda v. State of Maharashtra2 and in various other
decisions and reference to such cases is not necessary.
Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 679
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

13. As in the case on hand conviction imposed on the appellant is

only based on circumstantial evidence, we feel that the various
decisions of this Court laying down the principles of appreciating the
circumstantial evidence while imposing the sentence can be
highlighted. The earliest case on this subject was
HanumantGovindNargundkar v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343. In para
10, the position has been succinctly stated as under: (AIR pp.
345-46)
“10. … It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established,
and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be
such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused. In spite of the forceful arguments addressed to us by
the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State we have not been
able to discover any such evidence either intrinsic within Ext. P-3(a)
or outside and we are constrained to observe that the courts below
have just fallen into the error against which warning was uttered by
Baron Alderson in the abovementioned case.”
14. The decision in HanumantGovind was followed in the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore AIR
1960 SC 29. The said position was subsequently reiterated in the
decision in Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Admn.(1974) 3 SCC 668 In para 10
of the decision in Naseem Ahmed4, the legal position has been stated
as under: (Naseem Ahmed case4, SCC p. 670)
“10. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and it is therefore
necessary to find whether the circumstances on which prosecution
relies are capable of supporting the sole inference that the appellant
is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. The circumstances, in
the first place, have to be established by the prosecution by clear and
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

cogent evidence and those circumstances must not be consistent with

the innocence of the accused. For determining whether the
circumstances established on the evidence raise but one inference
consistent with the guilt of the accused, regard must be had to the
totality of the circumstances. Individual circumstances considered in
isolation and divorced from the context of the overall picture
emerging from a consideration of the diverse circumstances and their
conjoint effect may by themselves appear innocuous. It is only when
the various circumstances are considered conjointly that it becomes
possible to understand and appreciate their true effect. If a person is
seen running away on the heels of a murder, the explanation that he
was fleeing in panic is apparently not irrational. Bloodstains on the
clothes can be attributed plausibly to a bleeding nose. Even the
possession of a weapon like a knife can be explained by citing a
variety of acceptable answers. But such circumstances cannot be
considered in watertight compartments. If a person is found running
away from the scene of murder with bloodstained clothes and a knife
in his hand, it would in a proper context, be consistent with the rule
of circumstantial evidence to hold that he had committed the
murder.”
15. In the decision in SharadBirdhichandSarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116, this Court has laid down the cardinal principles
regarding appreciation of circumstantial evidence and held that
whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the following
features are required to be complied with which has been set out by
this Court which reads as under: (SCC p. 185, para 153)
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’
and ‘must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in
ShivajiSahabraoBobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

the following observations were made: [SCC p. 807, para 19

:SCC (Cri) p. 1047, para 19]
‘19. … Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the
mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’ (emphasis in original)
(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,
(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.”
The above principles have been followed and reiterated in the recent
decision of this Court in Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC
724.
16. In the decision in Rukia Begum v. State of Karnataka (2011) 4 SCC
779, this Court again restated the principles as under: (SCC p.
784, paras 17-18)
“17. In order to sustain conviction, circumstantial evidence must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than
that of the guilt of the accused. Such evidence should not only be
consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with his
innocence. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid to say that particular
circumstances are conclusive to establish guilt. It is basically a
question of appreciation of evidence which exercise is to be done in
the facts and circumstances of each case.
18. Here in the present case the motive, the recoveries and
abscondence of these appellants immediately after the occurrence
point out towards their guilt. In our opinion, the trial court as also
the High Court on the basis of the circumstantial evidence rightly
came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

case beyond all reasonable doubt so far as these appellants are

concerned.”

Arvind kumar Anupalal Poddar v. State of Maharashtra,(2012) 11

SCC 172
15. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must
establish each instance of incriminating circumstance by way of
reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved,
must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which, no
conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused can be reached.
Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it may be, can never be
treated as a substitute for proof. While dealing with a case of
circumstantial evidence, the court must take utmost precaution
whilst finding an accused guilty solely on the basis of the
circumstances proved before it.
16. Furthermore, in such a case, motive assumes great significance
and importance, as the absence of motive puts the court on its guard
and causes it to scrutinise each piece of evidence very closely in order
to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place
of proof. The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates
in the minds of assailants is very often, not known to any other
person. The motive may not even be known, under certain
circumstances, to the victim of the crime. It may be known only to the
accused and to none other. It is, therefore, only the perpetrator of the
crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to
adopt a certain course of action leading to the commission of the
crime.

Pudhu Raja v. State,(2012) 11 SCC 196

40. It is a settled legal proposition that the conviction of a person
accused of committing an offence is generally based solely on
evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional
circumstances, such conviction may also be based solely on
circumstantial evidence. For this to happen, the prosecution must
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and cannot derive any
strength from the weaknesses in the defence put up by the accused.
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

However, a false defence may be brought to notice only to lend

assurance to the court as regards the various links in the chain of
circumstantial evidence, which are in themselves complete. The
circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn, must be fully established. The same must be of a conclusive
nature, and must exclude all possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved. Facts so established must be consistent with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused, and the chain of evidence must be
complete, so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused, and must further show,
that in all probability the said offence must have been committed by
the accused. (Vide Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra25
and Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand26.)

R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266

29. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2 it was held by
this Court that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain
is complete and that falsity or untenability of the defence set up by
the accused cannot be made the basis for ignoring any serious
infirmity or lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The Court then
proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established
before a conviction can be made on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. These are: (SCC p. 185, para 153)
“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
… the circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’
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,
(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
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused.”
Thus, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must
establish each instance of incriminating circumstance, by way of
reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved
must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which, no
conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused can be reached.
Undoubtedly, suspicion however grave it may be, can never be
treated as a substitute for proof. While dealing with a case of
circumstantial evidence, the court must take utmost precaution
whilst finding an accused guilty, solely on the basis of the
circumstances proved before it.

Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab,(2012) 11 SCC 205

9. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well
settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn
must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances
must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively
should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the
chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and
totally inconsistent with his innocence.
10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt
can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra2 it was held
as under: (SCC p. 690, para 12)
“12. … The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial
evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that
those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances
taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of

explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the
accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”
The same principle was reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram3,
Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan4, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh5 and
State of T.N. v. Rajendran6.

16. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must

be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to be
truthful in the given circumstances of the case. Once that impression
is formed, it is necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more
particularly keeping in view the drawbacks and infirmities pointed
out in the evidence and evaluate them to find out whether it is
against the general tenor of the prosecution case……………….

State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar, (2018) 2 SCC 69

LIST OF JUDGMENTS
1. ArvindkumarAnupalalPoddar v. State of (2012) 11 SCC 172
Maharashtra
2. HanumantGovindNargundkar v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SCR 343
3. Prakash MahadeoGodse v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 3 SCC 741
4. Pudhu Raja v. State (2012) 11 SCC 196
Sl. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Bench
No. Strength

5. State of A.P. v. I.B.S. Prasada Rao (1969) 3 SCC 896

6. Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 679
7. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab (2012) 11 SCC 205
8.
9.
10.
11. Vadlakonda Lenin v. State of A.P. (2012) 12 SCC 260
12.
13.

GROUNDS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN BY LITIGANTS

REPLY TO GROUNDS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN BY LITIGANTS