Law and You >Procedural Laws > Indian Evidence Act, 1872 > Circumstantial Evidence

In order to arrive at a decision in a civil, criminal or administrative cases to establish and prove the matters of defence or mitigation or to overcome a prima-facie case or presumption the essential question which one needs to answer is whether the evidence placed before them meets the required parameters or adequate enough to give such evidence. It is known fact that the decision will be rendered in whose favour the balance of evidence tilts. Such evidence will be sufficient and legally justifiable for the judicial action as demanded or prayed by the parties. The proper recognition, documentation, reconstruction, submission of relevant evidence, and preservation of evidence is critically important in all crimes scene investigations. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial. It is a popular misconception that circumstantial evidence carries less weight or importance than direct evidence. This is only partly true. While direct evidence is generally seen as more powerful, most successful prosecutions rely greatly on circumstantial evidence. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturization 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”.

The word evidence has been derived from Latin word “evidre” which implies to show distinctly to ascertain, to prove. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines the types of evidence in Indian Evidence Act and legal proceedings, encompassing two primary categories: oral evidence, which includes statements made by witnesses relevant to the matter under inquiry and presented with court authorization, and documentary evidence, comprising documents, whether physical or electronic, submitted to the court for examination.

Oral and documentary evidence can be divided into two categories:

• Direct or primary;
• Indirect or hearsay or secondary.

Direct Evidence:

Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact without the need for inference or interpretation. It is based on personal knowledge or observation of the fact in question. Unlike circumstantial evidence, which relies on inferences to connect facts and draw conclusions, direct evidence provides a clear and straightforward demonstration of the fact it is intended to prove.

Direct evidence is generally considered strong and convincing because it directly addresses the issue in question. Courts often place a high value on direct evidence, especially if it comes from credible and reliable sources. However, it’s important to note that the weight given to direct evidence depends on factors such as the credibility of the witness, the circumstances surrounding the evidence, and any potential inconsistencies or biases.

Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence:

Indirect evidence is that evidence which proves the facts in question by giving other facts that are indirect evidence and afterwards, proving their relevance to the issue. The deduction that can be drawn is from such evidence by connecting a series of other facts to the facts in question. These indirect facts must have been related to the facts in question and have a cause and effect connection. In legal proceedings, both direct and circumstantial evidence can be used, and the weight given to each type of evidence depends on the specific circumstances of the case. Inferences from circumstantial evidence may be drawn on the basis of reason, experience, and common sense. Inferences may not, however, be drawn by guesswork, speculation, or conjecture.

Example 1: When you got up this morning it was a nice, sunny day. But when you looked around you noticed that the streets and sidewalks were very wet. You had no direct evidence that it rained during the night. But, on the combination of facts you to assume, it would be reasonable and logical for you to infer that it had rained during the night.

Example2: X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z’s fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y’s bedroom. A judge may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z’s presence in the bedroom.

Example 3: A witness did not see the stabbing. The witness did see the defendant go into the house carrying a knife. The witness heard a scream inside the house and saw the defendant run out, not carrying the knife. The victim is later found inside with a knife in her back. A reasonable inference is that the defendant stabbed the victim. Whether that fact is true will determine if the defendant is guilty.

The law draws no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance. Either type of evidence or a combination of both may be enough to meet the applicable burden of proof, depending on the facts of the case as determined by the finder of fact. A party may prove a fact entirely on circumstantial evidence or upon a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. But the circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence because it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

Essentials of Circumstantial Evidence:

Circumstantial evidence, while indirect, can be compelling and can lead to reasonable inferences about the facts in question. To be considered valid and reliable, circumstantial evidence should meet certain essential criteria

Relevance to the Fact in Issue:

The relevance of circumstantial evidence to the fact in issue is a crucial aspect in legal proceedings. It should have a logical connection to the issue being considered by the court.

• Circumstantial evidence must establish a logical and direct connection to the fact in issue. It should contribute to the understanding or inference of the main point under consideration. Thus, the circumstantial evidence should be pertinent to the allegations or claims made in the case. It should address and shed light on the specific issues that are in dispute.
• Irrelevant circumstantial evidence, i.e., evidence that does not have a direct bearing on the fact in issue, may be excluded. Courts typically focus on evidence that is directly related to the case at hand to ensure a fair and efficient legal process. The court determines the admissibility of evidence based on its relevance to the fact in issue. Evidence that is not relevant may be deemed inadmissible.
• Circumstantial evidence gains its significance by enabling the court to draw reasonable inferences about the fact in question. Each piece of circumstantial evidence should contribute to building a plausible and coherent inference. In some cases, circumstantial evidence may be used to corroborate direct evidence. Even if direct evidence is available, the court may consider additional circumstantial evidence to strengthen the case.

Relevance is crucial to maintaining fairness and clarity in legal proceedings. It ensures that the evidence presented is directly tied to the issues to be decided and avoids unnecessary confusion or distraction. Thus, the relevance of circumstantial evidence to the fact in issue is a foundational requirement. It ensures that the evidence presented is meaningful, contributes to the resolution of the case, and is aligned with the specific issues that need to be addressed in the legal proceedings.

Chain of Circumstances:

The concept of the “chain of circumstances” is an important aspect when dealing with circumstantial evidence in legal proceedings. There should be a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. Each piece of circumstantial evidence should link together, forming a coherent and consistent narrative that supports the inference being made.

• A chain of circumstances refers to a series of interconnected events or facts that, when considered together, lead to a particular inference or conclusion. For circumstantial evidence to be effective, there should be a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances.
• Each piece of circumstantial evidence in the chain should be interdependent, with one fact leading to the next. The strength of the inference often depends on the cumulative effect of all the circumstances considered together.
• The chain of circumstances should follow a logical progression, where each fact or event logically flows from the preceding one. This logical progression helps build a coherent narrative that supports the inference being made.
• The chain of circumstances should, when considered collectively, exclude any reasonable alternative hypotheses or explanations. This means that the circumstances, when taken together, should point convincingly toward the conclusion being asserted.

The strength of circumstantial evidence lies in its ability to lead to a convincing inference or conclusion about the fact in question. The more complete and robust the chain of circumstances, the more persuasive the inference becomes. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Any gaps or missing links in the chain of circumstances can weaken the overall argument. If there is a break in the chain, the inference may be less reliable. Corroboration from different pieces of circumstantial evidence can help strengthen the chain. Additionally, consistency among the various elements of the chain enhances the credibility of the inference.

Courts carefully evaluate the completeness and strength of the chain of circumstances when assessing the probative value of circumstantial evidence. The court considers whether the evidence, when viewed as a whole, supports the inference beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the chain of circumstances is a conceptual framework used to understand how different pieces of circumstantial evidence are linked together to establish a particular inference. It is crucial for this chain to be complete, logically connected, and capable of excluding alternative explanations to ensure the effectiveness of circumstantial evidence in legal proceedings.

Exclusion of Other Possibilities:

The principle of “Exclusion of Other Possibilities” is an important aspect of evaluating circumstantial evidence in legal proceedings. The circumstantial evidence should lead to the inference of guilt or the fact in question to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis. It is crucial to eliminate other possible explanations that do not involve the guilt of the accused. The exclusion of other possibilities means that circumstantial evidence should lead to the inference of guilt or the fact in question to the exclusion of any other reasonable alternative explanations. In other words, the evidence should make the proposed inference more likely than any competing explanations. The goal of this principle is to eliminate reasonable doubt. If there are other plausible explanations for the circumstances presented, and these explanations create doubt about the guilt or the fact in question, the circumstantial evidence may be considered less convincing.

Circumstantial evidence should be clear and unambiguous in pointing towards the guilt of the accused or the occurrence of a specific fact. If there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the circumstances that do not involve guilt, the evidence may be less persuasive. The court, when assessing circumstantial evidence, should consider and evaluate any alternative hypotheses that might explain the observed circumstances. If there are other reasonable explanations that do not involve guilt, the exclusion of those possibilities becomes crucial.

The strength of circumstantial evidence lies in its ability to lead to a particular inference to the exclusion of other reasonable inferences. The more exclusive the inference, the more probative value the circumstantial evidence carries. In criminal cases, where guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the exclusion of other possibilities becomes particularly important. The circumstantial evidence should collectively and conclusively point to the accused’s guilt, leaving little room for alternative explanations.

Judges play a crucial role in evaluating circumstantial evidence, considering whether the evidence meets the standard of excluding other reasonable possibilities. Judges must assess the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence in reaching their decision. Thus, the exclusion of other possibilities is a critical principle in the assessment of circumstantial evidence. It ensures that the inference drawn from the circumstances is the most reasonable and likely explanation, effectively supporting the case presented in legal proceedings.

Cumulative Effect:

The cumulative effect of all the circumstantial evidence should be such that, when considered together, they lead to a strong inference about the fact in question. The “Cumulative Effect” of circumstantial evidence refers to the combined strength and persuasive power that multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence can have when considered together. Rather than relying on individual circumstances in isolation, the cumulative effect arises from the collective weight of all the interconnected elements in a case. Each piece of evidence may be weak on its own, but collectively they should form a compelling case.

The cumulative effect relies on the idea that the combined force of several independent pieces of circumstantial evidence can create a more compelling and persuasive case than each piece would on its own. It strengthens the overall argument by presenting a broader and more comprehensive picture. Circumstantial evidence, when viewed cumulatively, contributes to building a coherent narrative that supports the desired inference. Each piece of evidence fills a specific role in the overall story, enhancing the overall plausibility of the conclusion being drawn. While one piece of circumstantial evidence may have its weaknesses or limitations, the cumulative effect allows the strengths of some pieces to compensate for the weaknesses of others. The court can weigh the totality of the evidence rather than relying solely on individual elements.

The probative value of circumstantial evidence often increases when there is a cumulative effect. As more elements align to support a particular inference, the likelihood of the inference being accurate or true becomes stronger. Cumulative circumstantial evidence, when well-coordinated and interrelated, can help in excluding other reasonable possibilities or alternative explanations. The collective weight of the evidence may make alternative scenarios less plausible. Cumulative circumstantial evidence can reveal a pattern of behaviour or events that is consistent with the inference being made. Patterns strengthen the case by showing a consistent and logical sequence of events or actions. Cumulative circumstantial evidence can also be used to corroborate direct evidence. When direct evidence is available, the addition of circumstantial evidence can provide additional layers of support for the overall case.

The court, in evaluating circumstantial evidence, considers the cumulative effect to assess the overall strength of the case. Judges and jurors weigh the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the inference is sufficiently supported. Thus, the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence underscores the idea that the combined force of multiple elements can be more persuasive than each individual element alone. It contributes to the overall coherence and strength of the case, helping to establish a more robust foundation for the desired inference.

Consistency and Reliability:

The circumstantial evidence should be consistent with other evidence presented in the case. The consistency and reliability of circumstantial evidence are crucial factors in determining the strength and credibility of the overall case. Inconsistencies or contradictions may weaken the overall reliability of the circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence should adhere to rules regarding hearsay. Hearsay, which is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, can introduce inconsistencies or unreliable information.

Circumstantial evidence should be internally consistent, meaning that each piece of evidence aligns with and does not contradict the others. Internal consistency enhances the credibility of the entire set of circumstances. Consistency with external evidence or known facts is also important. Circumstantial evidence should align with other established facts, preventing conflicts or discrepancies that might raise doubts about the reliability of the evidence. Contradictions within circumstantial evidence, or between circumstantial evidence and other forms of evidence, can weaken the case. Courts assess whether there are any inconsistencies that may undermine the reliability of the overall narrative.

Consistency among various pieces of circumstantial evidence can serve as a form of corroboration. When multiple elements independently support the same inference, it strengthens the overall reliability of the evidence. Courts evaluate the credibility and trustworthiness of witnesses or documents contributing to the circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence should be based on facts, not speculation. Speculative elements weaken the reliability of the evidence. The court looks for concrete and verifiable information to support the inferences being drawn. If circumstantial evidence is based on events that occurred over a period, the consistency of the evidence over time becomes important. Changes or contradictions in the account may affect the reliability of the evidence.

If expert opinions contribute to circumstantial evidence, their consistency with established principles in their field is crucial. Courts assess the reliability of expert testimony and whether it aligns with generally accepted standards. In cases involving eyewitness testimony or statements from individuals, the consistency of their accounts is vital. Inconsistencies may raise questions about the reliability of the witnesses.

Thus, the consistency and reliability of circumstantial evidence are essential for its effectiveness in legal proceedings. Courts scrutinize the coherence of the evidence, the absence of contradictions, and the reliability of sources to determine the overall credibility and strength of the circumstantial case presented.

No Missing Link:

The concept of having “No Missing Link” in circumstantial evidence is essential for its effectiveness in legal proceedings. A missing link refers to a gap or absence in the chain of circumstances, and the presence of such gaps can weaken the overall case.

For circumstantial evidence to be persuasive, there should be a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. Each piece of evidence should connect logically with the others, forming a coherent narrative that supports the desired inference. The absence of a missing link ensures a logical progression from one circumstance to the next. A well-established chain allows the court to follow a clear sequence of events or facts, making it easier to draw the intended inference. A complete chain of circumstances contributes to the exclusion of other reasonable possibilities or explanations. When there are no missing links, the inference drawn becomes more compelling, as alternative scenarios are less likely.

A missing link may lead to speculation or assumptions about the events or facts in question. Courts prefer evidence that is based on established facts and logical connections rather than relying on assumptions or guesswork. The presence of a missing link may introduce doubt about the accuracy or completeness of the circumstantial evidence. Courts aim to minimize doubt by ensuring that all relevant circumstances are presented and connected in a way that leaves little room for alternative interpretations. A missing link can be a vulnerability in the case, potentially providing an opportunity for the defence to challenge the evidence. Prosecution or presenting parties must strive to present a case with no missing links to strengthen their position.

In criminal cases, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, having no missing link becomes crucial. A complete chain of circumstantial evidence contributes to meeting the high standard of proof required for a conviction. Courts carefully scrutinize circumstantial evidence for any gaps or weaknesses. If there are missing links, the court may question the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, the absence of a missing link in circumstantial evidence is vital for its effectiveness and persuasiveness. A complete and logically connected chain of circumstances contributes to a stronger case, supporting the desired inference or conclusion in legal proceedings.

Probative Value:

The probative value of circumstantial evidence refers to its ability to prove or establish a fact in question. Unlike direct evidence, which directly proves a fact, circumstantial evidence relies on inferences drawn from the circumstances surrounding the evidence. The court assesses the strength of the evidence and considers whether it is sufficiently compelling to support the inference being made. The higher the probative value, the more convincing and persuasive the circumstantial evidence is in supporting the desired inference. Here are some key considerations regarding the probative value of circumstantial evidence:

The probative value depends on the strength of the inference that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. A stronger and more logical inference enhances the probative value of the evidence. Cumulative circumstantial evidence can have a higher probative value when multiple pieces of evidence independently support the same inference. The combined weight of the evidence contributes to a more robust case. The probative value increases if the circumstantial evidence leads to the exclusion of other reasonable possibilities or explanations. When alternative scenarios are effectively ruled out, the probative value is strengthened. Reliable and consistent circumstantial evidence adds to its probative value. Internal consistency among different pieces of evidence and consistency with external facts or evidence contribute to the overall reliability of the case.

A complete and unbroken chain of circumstances enhances the probative value by presenting a coherent and logical sequence of events. The absence of missing links reduces potential weaknesses in the case. Circumstantial evidence can have significant probative value when it corroborates direct evidence. If the circumstantial evidence independently supports the same conclusion as direct evidence, it strengthens the overall probative value.

Probative value is enhanced when circumstantial evidence is based on established facts rather than speculation or conjecture. The court is more likely to rely on evidence that is grounded in verifiable information.

The credibility of witnesses providing circumstantial evidence is a crucial factor. Witnesses with high credibility enhance the probative value of their testimony, contributing to the overall strength of the case. Adherence to legal standards and rules governing the admissibility of evidence can impact probative value. Evidence that meets the relevant legal criteria is more likely to be considered by the court. Ultimately, the court assesses the probative value of circumstantial evidence. Judges and juries weigh the evidence based on its strength, reliability, and overall contribution to proving or disproving the facts in question.

Thus, the probative value of circumstantial evidence is influenced by various factors, including the strength of the inference, cumulative effect, exclusion of other possibilities, reliability, and consistency. Courts carefully evaluate these elements to determine the persuasiveness and credibility of circumstantial evidence in legal proceedings.

In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 case, the Supreme Court, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.

In State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh (2014) 12 SCC 211 case, the Supreme Court held that in a case of unnatural death of wife of accused in a room occupied only by both of them, when there was no evidence of anybody else entering the room and the accused has not explained the circumstances about unnatural death of his wife, the principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was clearly applicable.

Corroboration:

Corroboration in circumstantial evidence involves the presence of additional evidence that independently supports or confirms the facts or inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence. Corroborative evidence helps strengthen the overall case by providing multiple sources of support.

Corroborative evidence reinforces the inference or conclusion drawn from the circumstantial evidence. It adds weight to the case by independently supporting the central facts in question. The court may view a case more favorably when there is independent support from different sources, reducing concerns about the potential weaknesses or biases in any single piece of evidence. Multiple, independent sources of evidence reduce the risk of error. When different pieces of evidence converge to support the same conclusion, it becomes less likely that the inference is based on coincidence or a single unreliable source.

In legal proceedings, the burden of proof often rests on the party making the claim. Corroborative evidence can be crucial in meeting this burden, especially in cases where circumstantial evidence forms a significant part of the argument. Corroborative evidence should meet the admissibility criteria set by legal standards. Courts evaluate the relevance and reliability of corroborative evidence before allowing it to be presented in court.

The effectiveness of corroboration often depends on the independence of the sources. If the corroborative evidence is derived from a separate, unbiased source, it carries more weight in supporting the circumstantial evidence. Corroborative evidence can take various forms, including witness testimony, documentary evidence, physical evidence, or expert opinions. The nature of the case and the type of circumstantial evidence may influence the choice of corroborative evidence.

The cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence and corroborative evidence combined can be powerful. The court assesses the overall strength of the case by considering how the various pieces of evidence work together to support the desired inference.

Courts evaluate the probative value of corroborative evidence, considering its relevance, reliability, and impact on the overall case. The weight assigned to corroborative evidence may vary based on its strength and independence.

Thus, corroboration in circumstantial evidence is a valuable component in legal proceedings. It serves to strengthen the case, enhance credibility, and provide additional assurance that the inference drawn from circumstantial evidence is well-founded.

It’s important to note that while circumstantial evidence can be powerful, the standards for admissibility and evaluation may vary based on jurisdiction and the specific legal context. Courts assess the quality and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence on a case-by-case basis, considering the unique circumstances of each situation.

In Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 case, the Apex Court gave these five golden principles, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”

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 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 unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
5. there must be a chain of evidence so completeas 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.

In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 case, the Supreme Court observed that in the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. 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 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.

In Rohtash Kumar v. State Of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 case, the Supreme Court observed that the evidence regarding the existence of a motive which operates in the mind of the accused is very often very limited, and may not be within the reach of others. The motive driving the accused to commit an offence may be known only to him and to no other. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive may be a very relevant factor. However, it is the perpetrator of the crime alone who is aware of the circumstances that prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggests adequately, the existence of the necessary motive required to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has in fact, committed the same.

Difference between Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence:

Direct Evidence	Circumstantial Evidence
Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact without the need for inference. It is based on personal knowledge or observation of the fact in question.	Circumstantial evidence is evidence that does not directly prove the fact but allows for an inference or deduction to be made. It involves the consideration of circumstances from which the court can draw conclusions about the existence of certain facts.
direct evidence provides a clear and unambiguous demonstration of a fact	Circumstantial evidence relies on inferences drawn from the circumstances surrounding the evidence.
Guilt is proven if the judge or jury is satisfied that the direct evidence substantiates the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Circumstantial evidence is not physical evidence, it can be used to prove guilt if it sufficiently links the defendant to the crime.
Direct evidence relies on a witness’s perception, knowledge, or observation of details or events.	Circumstantial evidence, which generally relies on the reasonable interpretation of circumstances.
It is straightforward and does not require any additional reasoning or interpretation. It provides a direct link between the evidence presented and the fact to be proven.	It requires the court to make inferences or draw conclusions based on the circumstances surrounding the evidence. It involves indirect reasoning.
Direct evidence is meant to disprove or prove the specifics of a case without relying on interpretation.	Circumstantial evidence presents a series of facts directly correlated with the case, resulting in a cause-and-effect relationship meant to formulate a just conclusion.
Direct evidence doesn’t require a presumption or inference to prove the fact in question.	The court must rely on analytical interpretation when examining circumstantial evidence.
Generally direct evidence is considered strong and convincing because it directly addresses the issue in question.	The strength of circumstantial evidence depends on the cumulative effect of the circumstances and the ability to exclude other reasonable explanations.
Fabricating or suppressing direct evidence is much more straightforward.	It is relatively difficult to suppress circumstantial evidence.
Eyewitness testimony, video footage, confessions, and documents that directly establish a fact are all forms of direct evidence.	If a person is found at the scene of a crime with a motive and their fingerprints on a weapon, it may be circumstantial evidence. Each individual piece of evidence may not directly prove guilt, but together they imply it.

For More Articles on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here