Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Circumstantial Evidence

Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence — In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof — Suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof.

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence — It is not derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial — Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the circumstances cannot fail — Therefore, many a times it is aptly said that “men may tell lies, but circumstances do not” — In cases where 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 — Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually — However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other — In regard to proof of primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered — In dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies — Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts — In drawing these inferences, the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case — The Court thereafter has to consider the effect of proved facts — In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. 

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence — The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved — But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be.

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence — 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.

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence — False plea or false defence — Where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court.

 
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence — In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence.

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence — While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is “inferential evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances.

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence — The facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt — If conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused — The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused — Raghav Prapanna Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P. - AIR 1963 SC 74 relied.

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence — All the links in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused — State of UP vs. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, [1992 Crl.L.J 3693(SC) – (Para 20)] relied. 

 
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313 — Where circumstances proved are put to the accused through his examination under Section 313 of the Code and the accused merely denies the same, then such denial would be an additional link in the chain of circumstances to bring home the charge against the accused — Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs. Ponna Satyanarayana & Anr. [(2000) 6 SCC 286] and Geetha vs. State of Karnataka [(2000) 10 SCC 72] relied.

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence — If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself/themselves, is/are not decisive.

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence — The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved — But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be — There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for 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.

 
Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence — Although there should be no missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts — In drawing these inferences or presumptions, the Court must have regard to the common course of natural events, and to human conduct and their relations to the facts of the particular case.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.