Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta laid down guidelines that must be adhered to by the lower courts while evaluating circumstantial evidence.                          

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerela & Anr (2024). 

What was the Background of Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerela & Anr. Case?  

• On 4th April 2012, at approximately 6:30 am, a 9-year-old girl was on her way to a Madrassa in Amarambalam Village when she stopped at the house of the accused to accompany his daughter. 
• The accused, finding the child alone, raped her around 6:45 am in his house. Subsequently, he strangled and smothered her, causing her death. 
• The accused hid the victim's body beneath a cot in his house and later moved it to the attached bathroom. He attempted to dispose of the body in a septic tank by removing stones from its slab. 
• The father of the victim filed a First Information Report in the police station. 
• The victim's body was found at around 7:30 pm on the same day in the bathroom of the accused's house. 
• The accused was charged under Section 376, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (JJ Act). 
• The Investigating Officer collected forensic evidence, made recoveries based on the accused's disclosure statements, and submitted a charge sheet for offenses under Sections 376, 302, and 201 IPC and Section 23 of the JJ Act. 
• The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him including death penalty under Section 302 of IPC. 
• The accused filed an appeal under Section 374(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Kerala. The trial court's death sentence was referred to the High Court for confirmation under Section 366 CrPC. 
• The High Court allowed the death sentence reference and confirmed the death sentence. 
• Hence, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court assailing the above order passed. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that all the witnesses produced in the present case are either related to the victim or were residents of neighborhood and could not bore any ill will against the accused. 
• The Court also lent credibility to the forensic evidence and held that the prosecution has given convincing link evidence to establish the safe keeping of the samples right from the time of the seizure till receipt at the forensic laboratory. 
• Thus, the Court rejected any possibility of semen containing the DNA of the accused being planted on the body of the accused. 
• Thus, the Court held that there were several circumstances that stand firmly against the accused in the present facts. 
• The Court despite concurring with the ultimate decisions of the Court below criticized the Courts with regards to deficiencies in methodology adopted by the Courts in appraisal and analysis of the circumstantial evidence. 
• It was observed by the Supreme Court that the lower Courts have undertaken an examination of the testimonies of the witnesses but has omitted to delineate the inferences derivable therefrom. 
• Thus, the appeal filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed. 

What is Circumstantial Evidence? 

• Evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) is:  
  • 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 electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.  
• The definition of evidence can be found in Section 2 (e) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 
  • The BSA includes statements given electronically and the electronic or digital records within the ambit of evidence.  
• Evidence in India is classified into two broad headers, Direct Evidence, and Indirect Evidence that is Circumstantial Evidence.  
  • Direct Evidence are those which conclusively proves the fact whereas Circumstantial Evidence are chain of circumstances used to prove a fact. 
• It marks its origin from the Roman system of law where it was used as a significant factor for the investigation of a case.  
• It based on the principle that “Men may tell lies, but circumstances do not”.  
• The five golden principles with regard to conviction based upon circumstantial evidence are very well crystalized in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984). 

What are the Principles laid down by the Court in this Case on Circumstantial Evidences? 

• The following principles were enunciated by the Court to be considered where the case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidences: 
  • The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked. 
  • Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated. 
  • Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. 
  • The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt. 
  • The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis. 

What are the Important Cases on Circumstantial Evidence? 

• Sharad Birdichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 
  • The five golden rules which are also known as Panchsheel were laid down in this case which are as follows: 
    • The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established,  
    • 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,  
    • The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,  
    • They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved  
    • 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. 
• Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020):  
  • The Supreme Court in this case observed the principles laid down in various judgments regarding motive as a circumstance for conviction.   
  • The Court observed that in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995) it was held that if motive is proved that would provide a link in the chain of circumstances of evidence, but the absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.   
    • At the same time in Babu v. State of Kerela (2010), the Court held that motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.