Introduction 

• The legal system fundamentally depends on evidence to ascertain facts, support claims, and ensure fair and equitable outcomes in judicial proceedings. Within this framework, the distinction between primary and secondary evidence is critically important. 
• The circumstantial evidence is, however, not secondary evidence, it is direct evidence which is applied indirectly and is relevant to prove the facts of the case. 
• The word “relevant” has been defined under Section 2(k) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023(BSA).  
  • A fact is said to be relevant to another when it relates to the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Adhiniyam relating to the relevancy of facts. 

What is Circumstantial Evidence? 

• Evidence under Section 3 of the 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. 
• 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). 

Five Golden Principles 

• The five golden principles, constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence: 
  • 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. 

What is the Difference Between Direct & Circumstantial Evidence? 

Landmark Judgements 

• 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. 
• Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021): 
  • The Supreme Court reinforced that, in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, an accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation as required by Section 106 of IEA could serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. 
• Dilip Sariwan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023): 
  • The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld murder convictions based heavily on circumstantial evidence tied to an extramarital affair, significance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The Court observed that in such cases, the prosecution must prove every link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for innocence.   
• Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2023): 
  • In this case it was held that to convict the husband and his relatives there must be a full-fledged trial that is to be conducted, and the court cannot take help of the provisions of section 106 IEA for the same. 

Conclusion

Circumstantial evidence, while often viewed as less conclusive than direct evidence, can be a powerful tool in the legal system. When pieced together carefully, it can create a compelling narrative that leaves little room for alternative explanations. However, it requires careful interpretation and logical reasoning to connect the dots. Courts must scrutinize circumstantial evidence thoroughly to ensure it forms a complete and convincing chain of events. While it may not have the immediate impact of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence often plays a crucial role in unveiling the truth, especially in cases where direct evidence is scarce or unavailable.