Page |1

DHARMASHASTA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

JABALPUR
ACADEMIC SESSION 2020-2021

SUBJECT- LAW OF EVIDENCE

TOPIC- CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

1|Page
 Page |2

ACKOWLEDGMENT

I express my sincere Gratitude to our Honorable Vice Chancellor Professor. Dr. V. Nagraj,
Head of the Department Mrs Shipa Jain, Assistant. Professor of Law Mr. Gautam Gupta
and Deputy Librarian Dr. Sheel Bhadra Yadav of the Dharmashastra National law
University, Jabalpur for their valuable support and kind co-operation for guiding me to
work out the Research Article Project. Further, this opportunity would provide a great
experience area of Researching which would be highly helpful in the future course.

Also, I would like to thanks all my friends and Academic faculty members who spared out
some of their valuable time and provided their valuable inputs which resulted in the
successful completion of this Case Analysis. Also, I would to thank my University for
providing me the opportunity and infrastructure to complete research on my topic
successfully.

2|Page
 Page |3

Contents
ACKOWLEDGMENT................................................................................................................................2
PREFACE...................................................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER-1...............................................................................................................................................5
Direct Evidence.......................................................................................................................................5
Circumstantial evidence..........................................................................................................................6
Hypothesis-..............................................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER-2...............................................................................................................................................7
Conviction on sole basis of Circumstantial Evidence...............................................................................7
Chain Link Theory-...................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER -3............................................................................................................................................10
Circumstantial evidence and direct Evidence comparison....................................................................10
CHAPTER 4-................................................................................................................................................12
Limitation on Proving Guilt on sole basis of Circumstancial evidence.......................................................12
Case laws-..........................................................................................................................................12
OBSERVATION...........................................................................................................................................13
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................14
Scope and Limitation-................................................................................................................................14
Literature Review-.....................................................................................................................................15
Bibliography-............................................................................................................................................16
Staute & BOOK’s..................................................................................................................................16
Article & Cases.....................................................................................................................................16

3|Page
 Page |4

PREFACE

This academic Research is analysis of the Circumstantial evidence under the Evidence Act and
understanding its admissibility before the Court of Law as Sole base for conviction. We will be
looking the various type of evidence and their nature and finally attempt to draw contrast from
direct evidence.
The current objective of the research is to understand the current position of circumstantial
evidence as basis for conviction in absence of direct evidence from investigation proving the
relevant hypothesis or guilt of a crime. Further, we may go ahead even to understand the
limitation this may cause to part justice to all by highlighting the areas for concern if we convict
on basis of Circumstantial evidence only.
If over past few years, one may highlight a common occurrence can be seen where Judges
despite understanding the guilt cannot proceed with instigation and awarding punishment for
relevant felony after realizing the lack of direct evidence to pin-point the accuse. While other
time lack of direct evidence obtained from investigation makes it difficult to bring out the truth.
Therefore, this lead us to Circumstantial evidence being cause for concern having affect on all
the stockholder involved to Part justice

Research Methodology-
The Method of research is doctoral research in nature. That is all the information has been
acquired by the researcher from secondary sources and further, analyzed the secondary sources
like article, case, reports etc. The researcher uses the sources to analyse the research question and
conclude an report answering the research issues as objective of the research.

4|Page
 Page |5

CHAPTER-1

In legal proceeding before the Court of Law, some evidence may admitted to prove a fact of
relevance or when evidence may aid for supporting narrative or helping the court understand
other evidence. But, as per the interpretation of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 1,
evidence means and includes:
The general meaning of the term “evidence” is “the available body of facts or information
indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”:

 All statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence;

 All documents [including electronics record] produced for the inspection of the court.
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.2
For instance, where the question is whether the accused was present or not at the scene of crime,
testimony from bystander identifying the accused at be present at scene of event evidence to it.
Unless the accused proves his absence from scene of crime by oral or documentary evidence as
per Section 3. Further Evidence can be classified into two direct and circumstantial evidence,

Direct Evidence
Suppose yesterday, you saw an event such dog chewing house sofa, a direct evidence of the fact
that dog barked on cat in this case is a witness who is providing directly what you need to prove.
Therefore your testimony serves as direct evidence in this case
It is the testimony of the witness as to the principal fact to be proved 3e.g. the testimony or
statement of an individual who accredits the commission of the event establishing the crime. It
could also be documentary evidence even. It much less complicated and more convenient to
apply or inference whatever needs to be prove in this case.

Direct Evidence is usually of a superior influence in a legal proceeding than say circumstantial
Evidence which we further understand the reason ahead in the research

1
Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai,  AIR 2003 SC 2053 
3
Witness under evidence Act, 1872 available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/witness-under-the-evidence-act-1872/ ( last
seen 10/12/21)

5|Page
 Page |6

Circumstantial evidence
Suppose, the fact that sofa has been spoiled in dog hair and the dog was found sleeping on sofa
may cause us to inferring proof that the dog has spoiled the sofa. These circumstances are
indirectly related to the act of crime and support the proposition to court. They make it more
likely that what has been proposed to the court is true.
A fact which is put before the court and that fact itself does not tell us anything about the offence
of the course of action.4 It is not one of the elements of the course of action but it allows the
court to make some assumptions or some inferences that bring it very close to being able to
define other facts which are directly related to the chain of the course of action.5

For instance, Bob was observed near the Crane and was the one with the keys to crane on the site
where the Builder killed by accidentally by the fall of bricks from crane. Bob was then observed
running from the site after the accident. Now, it can be observed that these inferences are pretty
coincidental. These are the irresistible inferences that Bob probably killed the Builder.
Circumstantial evidence leads in the direction of thinking but they do not give us anything
conclusive.

Hypothesis-
Accused can be convicted on the basis of Circumstantial evidence revealed in the investigation
without any direct evidence.
Research Question-
1. Explain Chain link theory in inferring a relevant hypothesis or proof from Circumstantial
evidence revealed in the investigation without any direct evidence.
2. Courts interpretation on evidentiary value of Circumstantial evidence and limitation in
parting justice by court of law

4
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State AIR 1970 All 51, 1970 CriLJ 132
5
supra

6|Page
 Page |7

CHAPTER-2

Conviction on sole basis of Circumstantial Evidence

Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering
suspicion and thereby destroy social defense6. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is
better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing
justice according to law.7. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put
forward by the accused. 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.

The confession of an accused person is the best evidence if it is voluntary, to make this happen
accused are tortured till they confess, and their confession is used as evidence of guilt against
them. Today, no court would act upon a confession if there is the slightest suspicion of torture
having being employed, but that does not prevent the person entrusted with investigation from
resorting to such methods for gathering evidence.8
A court after considering the evidence presented before it and hearing the arguments comes first
to a conclusion that if the facts exist or not in reality which have been declared or denied by the
parties and after finding all the facts, the court applies the rule of law. If all the facts given in the
rule of law are found to exist, the right or liability which would follow according to the rule of
law is ordered by the court. When a court finds that facts provided exists, the following facts are
said to have been proved, if the court finds they do not exist, they are said to be rejected by the
court according to Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act9.
Section 106 deals with the burden of proving a fact within the special knowledge of a particular
person. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving
that fact is upon him10.

6
Gangadhar Behera & Ors V. State Of Orissa [2002] In sc 434
7
supra
8
All about Circumstancial evidence available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-circumstantial-evidence/ / ( last
seen 10/12/21)
9
Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
10
Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

7|Page
 Page |8

In Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar11, 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 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.

In the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 12 and Bodh
Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 2002 SC 316 13, it was held that a conviction can happen
purely on the basis of the circumstantial evidence if these essentials were fulfilled:

 The circumstances which establish the guilt of the accused have to be proven.
 The facts that have been established ought to be according to the hypothesis of the
accused.
 The circumstances should be conclusive in nature and tendency.
 There should be a complete chain and linkage of proof which establishes beyond
reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused and also establishes that the act had been
committed by the accused.
 The circumstances present must exclude all other hypotheses or scenarios or situations
from happening, except the one which is being tested by the evidence.

11
Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 164
12
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045
13
Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 2002 SC 316

8|Page
 Page |9

Chain Link Theory-

 As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, cannot apply to shift the burden of proof in a
criminal case, where the onus lies upon the prosecution throughout to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even where there are facts especially within the knowledge of
the accused, which could throw a light upon his guilt or innocence, as the case may be, the
accused is not bound to allege them or to prove them. But it is not as if the section is
automatically inapplicable to criminal trials, for, if that had been the case, the Legislature would
certainly have so enacted.
Where the accused throws no light at all upon facts which ought to be especially within his
knowledge, and which could support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence,
the Court can also consider his failure to adduce any explanation, in consonance with the
principle of the passage in Deonandan v. State of Bihar14—A.I. . 1955 S.C.
801, Smith v. R.15 1918, A.I.R. Mad. 111. If the accused alone is in a position to explain the only
alternative theory to his guilt, the absence of explanation could be taken into account.

14
Deonandan v. State of Bihar—A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 801
15
Smith v. R. 1918, A.I.R. Mad. 111

9|Page
 P a g e | 10

CHAPTER -3

Circumstantial evidence and direct Evidence comparison

As you can see, circumstantial evidence can be very convincing and sometimes it can be
incredibly powerful but it does mean that circumstantial evidence is different from direct
evidence. In this, one has to draw more links in his evidentiary chain of reasoning plus it is not
simply a matter of belief. Evidence can be direct evidence and circumstantial evidence at the
same time, it depends upon what you are trying to prove. So, this evidence right here is direct
evidence of the fact it was raining yesterday but its circumstantial proof if you need to prove that
people near John were carrying umbrellas. 

So guess what whether something is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence depends upon the
assertion you are trying to prove. So if you need to prove in your case that it was raining
yesterday, it is the direct evidence we are talking about here. If you need to prove rather that
people around where John was standing were carrying umbrellas, it is circumstantial evidence
and that is essentially different. It just depends on what it is you are trying to prove.

Circumstantial evidence is incredibly important in criminal cases and the reason why it is
important is that in criminal cases there is a probable need to prove the Actus Reus which is an
act and the Mens Rea which is the intention. 16 So in most of the assault cases, for example, direct
evidence for the Men’s Rea is difficult to obtain but easy to obtain for Actus Reus. In such cases
where it is difficult to obtain direct evidence for the men’s rea, their circumstantial evidence is
used instead to prove the men’s rea of the person who committed the crime.17 

For example, the fact that Suman saw Ram punch Ravi in the head is the direct evidence of the
Actus Reus but she can also provide circumstantial evidence of the mens rea because he looked
like he was intending to punch him. From this, it can be inferred that Ram had the Men’s Rea. It
is very important to use circumstantial evidence for a variety of propositions in a criminal case.

16
All about Circumstancial evidence available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-circumstantial-evidence/ / ( last
seen 10/12/21)

17
supra

10 | P a g e
 P a g e | 11

Direct evidence turns mainly on whether you believe the witness, if you believe this witness and
saw that it was raining then you have proof of the fact that you are trying to establish but
circumstantial evidence requires a different form of reasoning.18

First of all, it has to be believed for whatever reason the underlying statement just like with direct
evidence, it should be believed that this witness saw that the road was wet but then need to go
through a different pattern of reasoning because now it is entirely possible that the fact the road
was wet shows that it rained yesterday but it is also possible that the fact that the road was wet
means street was cleaned.

18
All about Circumstancial evidence available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-circumstantial-evidence/ / ( last
seen 10/12/21)

11 | P a g e
 P a g e | 12

CHAPTER 4-

Limitation on Proving Guilt on sole basis of Circumstantial evidence

Motive is basically the reason which induces or stimulates a person to do a certain act. Motive
assumes great significance where a conviction is sought to be
predicated on circumstantial evidence alone, and its absence can tilt the scales in favour of the
accused where all links are not avowedly present. 19However, absence of motive may not affect
the merits of a case if there is other positive evidence available to establish the guilt or
innocence,20 but it puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to
ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take the place of legal proof.21 In case of murder,
motive is not required to be proved as it is the intention or knowledge which is to be seen in such
cases.22

 There is a risk of too easily jumping to conclusions.

 Instructions to the jury are useful in warning of the risk of this type of evidence.
 Instruction should remind the jury the inference of guilty should be the only reasonable
inference from the facts.
Case laws-
Circumstantial evidence as Sole evidence to prove guilt? The Honorable Court considered
all the facts presented before the Bench in In Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar23, and
appropriately, held that court expects the factual circumstantial evidence and inferences
drawn from them to proof or support the singular hypothesis and leave no ground for any
other hypothesis and prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The Chain Link theory for Circumstantial with existing law within the Act and further provides
rational logically applicable and vital impact social-legal society the guilt of the accused can be
drawn. Then these circumstances need to be taken into consideration.

19
Haripada Dey v. State of W.B., AIR 1956 SC 757.

20
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
21
Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 8 SCC 165.
22
supra
23
Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 164

12 | P a g e
 P a g e | 13

OBSERVATION

 Circumstantial evidence as Sole evidence to prove guilt

The Honorable Court considered all the facts presented before the Bench in In Ramawati Devi
vs. State of Bihar24, and appropriately, held that court expects the factual circumstantial evidence
and inferences drawn from them to proof or support the singular hypothesis and leave no ground
for any other hypothesis and prove beyond reasonable doubt.

 The Chain Link theory for Circumstantial with existing law within the Act and further
provides rational applied in recent cases of omission and alteration of charges are
consistent and logically applicable and has a shared in existing impact social-legal society

A accused can be inflicted on circumstantial evidence sole, the prosecution needs to establish the
chain of circumstances that points at the accused only and is inconsistent with their innocence. It
is also important on the part of the prosecution to establish the chain of circumstances from
which the guilt of the accused can be drawn. Then these circumstances need to be taken into
consideration.

 Prosecution needs to establish the chain of circumstances that points at the accused only
and is inconsistent with their innocence. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in famous Jessica Lal murder was based on circumstantial
evidence as the witnesses were turned hostile. At first, the Delhi High Court reversed the
judgment of the trial court, who acquitted the accused, , due to witnesses’ hostility and lack of
strong evidence, the but High court found Manu Sharma guilty of the murder of Jessica Lal.
Which was further upheld by the Supreme Court

24
Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 164

13 | P a g e
 P a g e | 14

Conclusion

Circumstantial evidence through indirect evidence is an important part of the Indian Evidence

Act as if we refer to highly debated conviction in the case of Arushi Talwar murder case where
teenage daughter, and her live-in domestic worker, were murder brutally in similar way and the
prime suspects were Aarushi’s parents. Further, all the circumstances it is pointed towards the
accused guilty and there is no chance of the possibility of any other way then in such a situation,
then accused can only be solely convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Therefore the hypothesis is correct in assuming someone can be convicted on sole basis of
circumstantial evidence in absence of direct evidence. The court expects the factual
circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from them to proof or support the singular
hypothesis and leave no ground for any other hypothesis and prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Scope and Limitation-

 Circumstantial evidence is admissible on the basis of its relevance, but is not taken as full
proof, instead serving as a base for establishing the full proof evidence. Tests have been
laid down by the courts for situations when circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis
for conviction.

 It was held when there was no proof that the conditions under Section 33 were satisfied,
then the evidence given in the earlier civil proceedings would not be admissible in a later
criminal proceeding or it was held that the conditions can be waived through consent in
civil cases, but not in criminal cases. 

14 | P a g e
 P a g e | 15

Literature Review-

For the research I referred to an article by  which in detail introduces us to circumstantial

evidence and the need for it to 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.

The victims have right to get justice, to remedy the harm suffered as a result of crime. This right
is different from and independent of the right to retribution, responsibility of which has been
assumed by the State in a society governed by Rule of Law.
The court said that to convict an accused on circumstantial evidence alone, the prosecution needs
to establish the chain of circumstances that points at the accused only and is inconsistent with
their innocence. The essential conditions of admissibility of evidence must be fulfilled. A case to
be solely judged on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following conditions are to be
fulfilled:

 The guilt established from the circumstances must be proved.

 Circumstances should be conclusive in nature and tendency.
 The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

15 | P a g e
 P a g e | 16

Bibliography-

CASE LAWs
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai,  AIR 2003 SC 2053 
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State AIR 1970 All 51, 1970 CriLJ 132

Gangadhar Behera & Ors V. State Of Orissa [2002] In sc 434

Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 164

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045

Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 2002 SC 316

Deonandan v. State of Bihar—A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 801

Smith v. R. 1918, A.I.R. Mad. 111

Haripada Dey v. State of W.B., AIR 1956 SC 757.

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563

Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 8 SCC 165.

Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 164

Haripada Dey v. State of W.B., AIR 1956 SC 757.

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563

Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 8 SCC 165.

Ramawati Devi vs. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 16

Staute & Book’s & Other sources

 All about Circumstantial evidence available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-

circumstantial-evidence/ / (last seen 10/12/21)
 Witness under evidence Act 1872 available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/witness-under-the-
evidence-act-1872/ (last seen 10/12/21)
 Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
 Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

16 | P a g e
 P a g e | 17

 SCC online
 Legal service India
 Bar bench

17 | P a g e