Circumstantial Evidence

Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622)

Hanumant singh vs state of mp

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be

fully established

2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and 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.

These five golden principles constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti.

Circumstantial evidence is narrower than res gestae

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 ;

4. That the circumstances should, to a moral certanity , actually exclude every
hypotheis expectthe one proposed to be proved

“last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time
the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder,
ELECTRONIC OR CCTV EVIDENCE

CD, DVD, chip, Hard-Drive, Memory Chip, Pen Drive. – These kinds of
electronic records are admissible as Primary Evidence as stated in the case of State
of Gujarat vs. Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande as well as Secondary Evidence.
Like, if the CD in question is Primary Evidence, then it is admissible without a
question. CD, DVD, Hard-Drive, Memory Card or a Pen Drive to be Primary
Evidence, it is necessary that the data, picture, video or anything which is to be
presented to the court for Evidence is generated or recorded in that specific CD,
DVD, Hard Drive, Memory Card or Pen Drive at the source. In other words,
original media should be stored or recorded directly in that CD, DVD, Hard drive,
Memory Card or Pen Drive that was self-generated and created without any human
intervention as it was stated in the matter of Kishan Painter vs. The State.
Whereas if a CD is a Secondary Evidence, like if it is a copy of the original and is
a duplicated version, then it has to pass the test of authenticity, by complying with
the conditions under section 65(B) as it was stated in the matter of Anvar P.V
Versus P.K. Basheer and others. These conditions help to ensure the computer
output is authentic, reliable, accurate, and exclusion of the possibility of tempering
the Evidence. A certificate under section 65B(4) was held mandatory to be issued
or the Secondary Evidence in electronic form will not be considered by the court as
valid Evidence as stated in the case of Sharadendu Tiwari vs. Ajay Arjun Singh
and Ors.

One of the most followed methods to establish the identity of the accused person is
by way of “test identification parade (hereinafter referred as TIP)”. Evidence by
way of TIP is taken as per Section 9 of the IEA. When the witness knows and
recognizes the accused there is no need of TIP, in other words when the FIR is
registered against known/named accused person there is no need to go through the
process of conducting TIP, however when the crime is committed by unknown,
TIP is used as a tool to test the accuracy of the witness to identify the unknown
person whom the witness had seen at the place of occurrence on the time of
occurrence. TIP is not a substantive evidence rather it is a corroborative evidence.
In case of CCTV, cameras captures image and it is converted to digital through
Digital Video Recorder (hereinafter referred as DVR). The DVR is an electronic
record as it stores data in electronic form. If the DVR is itself brought to the Court,
it will be deemed as a primary evidence under section 62 of the IEA as the original
document is itself produced before the Court for inspection and there will be no
need to comply with the conditions of Section 65B (4) of the IEA. However, if
there are a large number of cameras installed and the information is digitally stored
in huge servers, it is not possible to bring the entire set up before the Court. In such
case the only available option is to copy the data from the huge server to a CD or a
USB and then produce it before the Court. Such USB and CD are not the primary
evidence and thus compliance of section 65B (4) is mandatory. A certificate is to
be obtained from the person who is in charge of the server. The main purpose
of certificate is to establish the proper working condition of the computer from
where the electronic record is produced before the Court for inspection, so that it
can be established that the content has not been ill-treated or tampered with due to
fault in the computer. The certificate has not been made a requisite to prove the
truthfulness of the content of the computer generated record.

EYE WITNESS

However, in Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan , it was held that the credibility
and the truthfulness of the eyewitness statement are not affected if the statement
has led to the acquittal of one accused and conviction of others. In Edward v.
Inspector of Police , it was held that the statement of the sole eyewitness is
reliable evidence even if it differs from the medical reports. In the case of Ram
Kumar v. State of Delhi it was held that any evidence of an police official which
is found reliable cannot be discarded on the ground that no independent witnesses
has been examined by the prosecution.

Read more at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/importance-of-an-eye-

witness-statement-14387.asp

CURRENCY NOTES

Section 489C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or

bank notes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency notes or
bank notes punishable. Possession and knowledge
the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to
constitute offence under Section 489 C and 489 D. As was observed by this Court
in State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 33) the expression
'currency notes' is large and wide enough in its amplitude to cover
the currency notes of any country. Section 489C is not restricted to
Indian currency note alone but it includes dollar also and it applies to American
dollar bills.

Golo Mandla Ram Rao And Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 July, 2003

To constitute an offence under Section 489B, I.P.C. it is essential that the currency
notes in question is forged or counterfeit and the accused has sold or brought or
received from some person or trafficked in or used as genuine such currency note
knowing or having reasons to believe that the said currency note is forged or
counterfeit. For the offence under Section 489C, I.P.C. in addition to the
ingredients referred to above the accused must be in possession of counterfeit
currency notes with intent to use it as genuine. In the case of Uma Shankar v. State
of Chattisgarh (supra) relying upon the ratio of the case M. Manmutti (supra), (AIR
1979 SC 1705) : 1979 Cri LJ 1383), the Apex Court has been pleased to observe in
para 8 that "A perusal of the provisions, extracted above shows that mens rea of
offences, under Sections 489B and 489C is "knowing or having reason to believe
the currency notes or bank notes are forged or counterfeit." Without the
aforementioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or
otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or
bank notes is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. So also
possessing or even intending to use any forge or counterfeit currency notes or bank
notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C in the absence of the
mens rea, noted above". In the case of Ragho Saran Sao (supra) (AIR 1961 Patna
405), Kanshi Bhagat (supra), Karunakaran Nadar (supra) (2000 Cri LJ 3748) and
also in the case of Bachan Singh (supra) (1982 Cri LJ 32), emphasis has been laid
regarding mens rea as a necessary constituent on the part of the accused for
convicting him under Sections 489B and 489C of the I.P.C. However, in the case
of Bachan Singh (supra) it has been observed that "in order to sustain conviction of
an accused under Sections 420/511, 489B and 489C, the prosecution has not only
to prove that the accused had the possession of counterfeit note, ensuring it or
having reason to believe it as such, but further to prove circumstances which lead
clearly, indubitably and irresistibly to his/her intention to use the notes on the
public. Such intention could be proved by a collateral circumstance that the
accused had palmed off such notes before or that he/she wag in possession of such
notes in such large numbers, that her possession, for any other purpose was
inexplicable." (Emphasis has been supplied by me). Here in this case 250 forged or
counterfeit currency notes all in the denomination, of Rs. 100/- have been
recovered from the conscious possession of appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao. 50
pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination have been
recovered from the conscious possession of appellant Manoj Kumar whereas 230
pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were
recovered from the conscious possession of appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias
Munna Singh and 160 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/-
denomination which were in the process of printing have been recovered from
appellant Uma Shankar Singh. The recovery of forged or counterfeit currency
notes in huge quantity from the possession of the appellants unequivocally leads to
an inference that they were in possession of those forged or counterfeit currency
notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and
intending to use them as genuine and their possession for any other purpose is
definitely inexplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and the only
reasonable presumption that could be drawn in the facts and circumstances of this
case is that the appellants were in possession of those forged or counterfeit
currency notes with intention to use or palm off them as genuine. The fact of the
recovery of the forged or counterfeit currency notes aforesaid with intention to use
them as genuine has been brought to the notice of the appellants in course of their
examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. very specifically and the appellants,
did not furnish any examination in respect thereof for the reasons best known to
them. The evidence on the record does show that the appellants were in possession
of those forged or counterfeit currency notes with requisite mens rea to use them as
genuine currency notes. Therefore, in view of the evidence on the record and its
meticulous perusal the learned Court below has rightly come to the finding of the
guilt of all the appellants under Section 489C, I.P.C. and further, all the appellants
except appellant Uma Shankar Singh for the offence under Section 489B, I.P.C.
and 1 see no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Court below in
respect thereof. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Manoj
Kumar that the allegation if proved shall fall under the ambit of Section 489E,
I.P.C. has no substance in the facts and circumstances of this case. The police
officials who were members of the raiding party are natural, competent and reliable
witnesses of the occurrence in question and they have no animus to depose false
against the appellants as well as to falsely implicate them. Their evidence is
reliable and trustworthy and I see ring of truth in their evidence. Therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of this case no independent corroboration is at all required
and the ratio of the case of Sabitri Devi (supra) (1995 (2) Pat LJR 854) has no
relevancy in this case. The ratio of the case laws referred by the learned counsel for
the appellants, which has not been discussed, has no relevancy in the facts and
circumstances of this case.

FORGERY

Shriniwas Pandit Dharamadhikari v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 – In this case, the

appellant had forged two certificates to get admission in the Arts the Commerce
College affiliated to Poona University. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
certificates forged to get admission in a college or university shall not be
considered as valuable security under Section 467 of the IPC, however, such
offence will be considered under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the IPC.

A.S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, 2004 – In this case, the father of a student forged
the marksheet of his son in order to secure admission in a medical course.
However, the total marks in the forged marksheet contained more marks than that
which a student could score even if he secured one hundred per cent marks. The
material on record clearly contradicted the plea of innocence. The marksheet in
question was purported to have been drawn up by the father after revaluation,
however, it indicated the same date of seal as that of the original marksheet. Thus,
the plea that the student and his father did not know the marksheet to be forged
was not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the accused were
liable to be convicted under Section 471 of IPC as they did not just possess the
knowledge that the marksheet was forged but also had a reason to believe that the
said marksheet was forged before they used it.
 In the case at hand, Learned trial court has also placed reliance upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Ishwarlal Girdharilal, AIR 1969 SC 40 wherein
the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that:

"11........the word „property‟ in this section (i.e. 420 of IPC) does not necessarily
mean that the thing of which a delivery is dishonestly desired by the person who
cheats, must have a money value or a market value, in the hand of the
persons cheated. It is further held that even if the thing of value in the hand of the
person who may get possession of it, as a result of the cheating practiced by him, it
would fall within the connotation of the term property in this section."

POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the accused on the alleged day of

occurrence, was found in possession live ammunitions in contravention of the
provision of Sec. 5 of Arms Act and thereby committed an offence u/s 25 (1-a) of
Arms Act? Whether the accused on the same day, was also found in possession a
7.65 mm Pistol which is a prohibited armsin contravention of the provision of Sec.
7 of Arms Act and thereby committed an offence u/s 25 (1-A) of Arms Act?

Whether on the same date and time you attempted to kill Shri Nandeswar Medhi,
the husband of the informant, by pressuring throat and broken his waist,with such
intention and under such circumstance,that,if by that act, you would caused the
death of Nandeswar Medhi, you would have been guilty of murder and thereby
committed an offence punishableU/S 307

Whether the accused person, on the same day, time and place, voluntarily caused
simple injury by blunt and sharp weapon to said Dimuram Patangia with such
intention (or knowledge), and under such circumstances, that, if, by that act, the
accused has caused the death of said Dimuram Patangia, the accused would have
been guilty of murder, and that the accused thereby caused hurt to the said
Dimuram Patangia and thereby committed an offence u/s 307 of IPC ?
I saw you coming out of the court towards

The bus stop in the evening of 28/12/23

You walked like a queen

With your black coat and white suit leaning

Deep down the toe, suits you perfect

You walked like a queen

Standing tall with an innocence on the face

Ready to take the challenges with brave heart

You walked like a queen….