Sample Answer for Judicial mains Examination where a case is based on circumstantial evidence:

Q. A is charged for the murder of his wife. During the trial the following facts are established:

(a) Deceased suffered burn injuries on her body;

(b) The last seen evidence points out that A was the only person present in the house at the relevant time;

(c) Before dying the deceased made a dying declaration that her sari caught fire due to an explosion in the stove when she was cooking food;

(d) As per the post mortem report she had suffered 90% burns and traces of kerosene were found on her head;

(e) No pieces of the stove were found at the scene of occurrence.

Solution:

Considering the facts and evidence in the case in hand, evidently, the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. Thus, before adverting the facts of the case in hand, it is appropriate to recall the well-established principles while appreciating the case based on circumstantial evidence.

            Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

            An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone were charged with theft of money, and were then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be regarded as circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt. Similarly if a witness arrives at a crime scene seconds after hearing a gunshot to find someone standing over a corpse and holding a smoking pistol, the evidence is circumstantial, since the person may merely be a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer dropped it. The popular notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is false. Most criminal convictions are based, at least in part, on circumstantial evidence that sufficiently links criminal and crime.

            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.

            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 satisfied. Conditions 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 certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis expect the one proposed to be proved.

The five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence are laid down in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622). It reads as follows:

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 Apex Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: [SCC para 19, p.807:SCC (Cri) p.1047]

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.

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 tedency.

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.

                                 

                                  Now, in the case in hand, the Post Mortem Report shows that the deceased had 90% burn injuries on her body, and that traces of kerosene are found on her head. The deceased had made a dying declaration that her sari caught fire due to an explosion in the stove when she was cooking food, this dying declaration does not involve the accused.  There is no evidence that how and who drenched her in kerosene and set her on fire. The only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against the accused is that he was the only person in the house at the relevant time.  In Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam 2017(3)(R.A.J.)555 Supreme Court held that where Murder case is based on circumstantial evidence and Prosecution could only prove circumstance of last seen. Accused could not be convicted on basis of last seen evidence alone if no other circumstances were proved.

            It is a settled principle of law that prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused, by direct or circumstantial evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. Findings of the court cannot be based on mere conjectures and surmises, assumptions and presumptions. Even in the present case, one cannot make a guess work that accused might have removed the pieces of stove etc. Further, it is to be noted here that the Dying Declaration is made admissible in evidence on the basis that presumption of truth is attached to it. So if dying declaration does not involve the accused and other circumstances are not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of crime, it casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution.   

            No doubt medical evidence shows that traces of kerosene were found on the head of deceased which is not possible in case of explosion of stove, but no evidence at the same time that accused did it. It is important to note here that there is no motive for the accused to commit the crime, proved by the prosecution and in cases based on circumstantial evidence motive assumes more significance.

            So, in totality of the circumstances, it can be said that two views are possible. In such situation, view in favour of accused, specifically in case where all circumstances taken together do not indicate towards the guilt of accused, accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and thus, liable to be acquitted.