In a case where the only evidence is circumstantial, it is important that the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused by cogent and reliable evidence and the proved circumstances must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and must exclude any hypothesis inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. [Per Md Imman Ali, J minority] Abu Taher vs State [73 DLR (AD) 9 ]
Circumstantial Evidence
No link in the chain is missing and the circumstances clearly lead to the guilt of the accused and, as such, the same are incompatible with reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused persons. The circumstances as evident appear to have been established beyond all doubt. [Per Md Imman Ali, J minority] Abu Taher vs State [73 DLR (AD) 10 ]
Circumstantial Evidence
As to prove the case, by circumstantial evidence well settled principals that thé circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established 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'. 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 offence must have been done by the accused. [Per Hasan Foez Siddique, J majority] Abu Taher vs State [73 DLR (AD) 10 ]
Circumstantial Evidence- The circumstances should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the probability that the crime was committed by the accused and no one else. Akbar Ali Lalu alias Roni vs State, 66 DLR 134
Circumstantial Evidence-Because of the very nature of systematic mass killing, it sometimes difficult on the part of the prosecution to collect direct evidence satisfactorily, since who would be prepared to provide such evidence were the objects of the executions and other witnesses, if available were unlikely to incriminate them.Salauddin Qader Chow- dhury vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 67 DLR (AD) 295
Circumstantial Evidence
Great care must be taken in evaluating the circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. [Per Hasan Foez Siddique, j majority] Abu Taher vs State [73 DLR (AD) 10 ]
Circumstances evidence —in the pre case it had been
admitted by the defence I the wife died in her husband's house j there is no
suggestion that the husband | away at the time of occurrence, prosecution
assertion that the Appellant at his house and killed his wife has not been
challenged on the ground that he was outside the house at the relevant time.
The defence case that the deceased died by taking poison has been disproved. On
the other hand the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the
wife was killed and circumstantial evidence indicates that the husband was at
his house at the time of occurrence. Further it appears that the Appellant was
in absconsion from after the death of the deceased until his surrender on
08.11.1995 more than five years later. If the deceased dies of consuming poison
he should have informed the police accordingly instead of absconding. Although
his long period of absconsion is not by itself conclusive of his guilt but if
lend weight to the circumstantial evidence against him. Gias Uddin Vs.
The State 11 BLT (HCD)-8
Evidence Act, 1872 read with Majority Act, 1875
Age of the victim
School certificate—in the instant case doctors certificate
as to age of the victim at 17 1/2-181/2 years of age and an opinion as to the
age is no conclusive proof thereof and the declaration in the statement under
section 164 Cr. P.C. of the victim that she was a major are no proof of age and
that radiologist’s opinion cannot be preferred to psitive evidence like school
certificate. Arun Karmaker Vs. The State 10 BLT (AD)-40
Circumstantial Evidence-If the circumstantial evidence are far from satisfactory and suffered from a number of infirmity, the court is left with no option other than to acquit the accused. Circumstantial evidence must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and if the evidence is inconsistent with any other rational explanation, than there is an element of doubt of which the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. The prosecution must have to prove several circumstances relied by the prosecution beyond doubt that the incriminating facts are such as to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the accused's guilt. The chain of evidence furnished by those circumstance must be complete and leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with accused's innocence. Sree Rabindra Nath Roy vs. The State (S.K. Sinha J) (Criminal) 9 ADC 520
Circumstantial Evidence
P.W. 4 Abdul, Aziz who claimed to be a 'flight-guard in
the area of Armanitola and he stated that he saw deceased Akber Sheith And
Sultan Ahmed P.W.2 to go together by nchshaw towards Ananada Moyee
School. At United Transport Agency, very near to the place of occurrence
he heard the firing sound and saw these two accused Ali Jan and Fazlu, Asad, Nairn
and two others running away crossing the wall of Armanitola filed. It is not
denied that near the place of occurrence there is Armanitola Math having a
boundary wall. P.Ws. 14 and 16 have stated that they got this information from
P.W. 4 in their house and in hospital immediately after the occurrence. All
other P.Ws. also heard from P.W. 4 that he saw these two accused running away
from the place of occurrence-—This strong circumstance lends support to the
presence of the accused persons at night in the plan of occurrence. Md.
Nurul Alam Vs., Ali Jan & Ors. 8 BLT (AD)-23
Circumstantial Evidence
Sufficiency of for Conviction It appears that in this
case excepting P.W. 2 there is no other eye witness of the occurrence, The
prosecution has succeeded in proving that deceased Niru was found dead in the
house of this condemned-prisoner while she was in his custody. In this case
besides the oral evidence the prosecution also relied upon the circumstantial
evidence. Admittedly Niru died at the house of this condemned-prisoner, her
husband and naturally there cannot be any eye witness of the occurrence from
the side of her father nor the someone from the house of the condemned-prisoner
would depose in support of the murder or on the factum of assault by this prisoner
upon the deceased. In such a situation the prosecution had no other alternative
but to rely on the circumstantial evidence. In such circumstances when the wife
met with her death while she was in the custody of her husband it is he who is
to explain how she met with her death. The defence tried to impress that she
was assaulted at her father's house by her relations who thereafter kept her
forcibly at the house of this condemned-prisoner but none of the prosecution
witnesses or even D. W. 1 has admitted this. No other defence witness was
examined to prove this defence version of the case. According to the defence
she was kept in the house of the condemned-prisoner at the date of occurrence
which he stated in his statement recorded under section 342 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. He also stated that he saw his wife in injured condition.
But he took no step for her treatment or inform any of the co-villager of the
incident. It appears that he allowed his wife to die and even after her death
he has not informed any of the co-villager or reported the matter to the police
which is admittedly at a distance of 3 kilometers from his house. None of the
inmates of the house also informed the police or took any medical help for
saving the life of the deceased suggested that she was assaulted by the
prosecution witnesses but no evidence was led in support of this suggestion.
The witness produced by the condemned-prisoner also is silent as to the
circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. Abdul Motleb Howalder
Vs. The State 8 BLT (AD)-288
Circumstantial Evidence – Sufficiency of conviction
Admittedly deceased Dhan Mia died in the house of accused
Malek Mia. The father of Moina who is the wife to the deceased and that the
accused were present in the house of Malek Mia on the night of occurrence. The
defence has not challenged that the accused were not present in the house of
Malek Mia. Where Dhan Mia died on the night of occurrence, no suggestion
was given to that effect that they were elsewhere. A suggestion was given to
P.W. 6 that Meherunnessa and her son Sibu were not present. Meherunnessa was
not convicted for murder. As regards Sibu, P.W. 2 stated that she saw him.
Therefore the complicity of appellants in the murder of Dhan Mia been established
by the prosecution beyond any doubt. The prosecution also has been able to
prove the first circumstance support of the prosecution case deceased Dhan Mia
along with P.Ws. went to his father-in-law's house to bring wife Moina. P.W. 2
has satisfactorily proved that she stayed in that house and that she been all
the accused at night in the east hut, thus is he second circumstance prove
against the accused. After the murder of Dhan Mia, the accused got a false
lodged through Meherun Nessa with the police stating that Dhan Mia committed
suicide with malafide intention of screening them (accused) from legal punished
although they believed that the information given to the police was false. This
is another circumstance P.W. 11 holding examination on the persons of deceased
found injuries and clearly opined that the death was due to the said injuries,
the defence could not satisfactory explanation as to how Dhan sustained such
injuries. This is an circumstance proved against the acc Since the plea taken
by the defence has not been substantiated by them or injuries alternative,
having found false in vie the medical evidence on record, and we find that the
accused were present place of occurrence when the deceased the prosecution has
been able to prove a strong circumstance of the complicity accused in the
murder of Dhan Mia excluding all other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
accused. Yunus & Ors. Vs. The State 8BLT (HCD)-245
Circumstantial Evidence – When sufficient to hold a man
guilty. In the instant case, it was found on evidence that Saiful Islam
was a rickshaw puller and used to work in Chittagong. He enticed the victim and
brought her home in his village at velara, Gaibanndha, from Chittagong. He
married her on 19.05.1996 and presumably started their conjugal life together.
Suddenly, he dead body of the victim was found to be dangling from a tree on
the morning of 24.05.1996. There is no evidence to suggest that he was not with
her on the fateful night in their house. Besides, his inexplicable conduct
showing a total disregard for the dead body of his own wife highlights his
reckless indifference towards |is near ones and nakedly exposes the
pathological condition of his mind. In such circumstances, in the absence of
any reasonable explanation coming from his side, the law shall hold him
responsible for the death of his wife, the victim. The State Vs. Md.
Joynal Abedin & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-376
Circumstantial Evidence – Onus to prove
True it is that an accused has got no obligation to
explain anything , the onus to prove the accusation is always on the
prosecution. But if two persons live together under one roof and one of them
suddenly dies in a suspicious circumstances in an unnatural manner, the other
person comes under an obligation to explain the circumstances leading to his or
her death. In the absence of a plausible explanation, the law casts a prima
facie responsibility on the person who is alive, for the death of the victim who
was earlier with him just before his or her death. The State Vs. Md.
Joynal Abdin & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-376
Circumstantial Evidence when not sufficient for
conviction
The Trial Court considered it as strong a circumstance
against the appellant why he was though present in the PS at the time of
lodging the FIR but did not become the informant. But he failed to notice that
the FIR was written by P.W. 18 Ranjit Baruna and after reading it out he took
the signature of P.W 1 Abu Hossain, Another fact noticed by the Trial Court,
why P.W.I flatly denied in his deposition that the appellant was with him at
the time of lodging the FIR even after his attention was drawn to the FIR did
not receive proper consideration from it. Moreover, P.W. 17 found only one injury
causing the death and that injury was caused by the appellant and the search
for money was also made by the appellant as per the confessions then how the
confessions could be treated to be inculpatory. As stated earlier, the Court
found that there is not an iota of evidence on record from any of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution implicating the appellant with the offence or any
other accused persons. All three confessions if closely considered, do not
inspire any confidence in anyjudicial mind. So, this a clear case of no
evidence. For the reasons, the judgment and order of conviction based solely
such confessions cannot therefore be sustained in law. Abu Sayed Vs. The
State 9 BLT (HCD)-175
Circumstantial evidence
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the incriminating
circumstances must be clearly proved and they must not be incompatible with any
reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The State Vs. Monu Miah & Ors. 10
BLT (AD)-12
Circumstantial Evidence
All the aforesaid witness found the appellant carrying a
'Dao' and was threatening to commit suicide if Firoja would not go with him. He
stayed for Firoja Begum in her father's house upto 2/3 A. M. of the fateful
night. May be after loss of both eyes, he became absolutely dependent on her to
pressure his daily routine of life. But it is in evidenced that Firoja Begum
became tired of Rouf and tried to get rid of him, even by divorce, which Rouf
might have learnt and could not accept. P.W.-9 Ataur Rahman found Firoja died
due to asphyxia by strangulation. Abdur Rouf moved out of the house of P. W.-2
Gisauddin holding Firoja. Then, in the early morning Firoja Begum found lying
dead on the south bank of the canal and Abdur Rouf was also found lying with
her, of course with a cut injury at his neck. Nobody came between them in the
intervening time. It would not be difficult for him to strangulate her to
death, when he was holding her. After fading her death, as was found by the
trial court, he might have wanted to avoid the liability inflicting a cut on
his own neck with the seized 'Dao' In the Absence of any other circumstance or
possibility. We find all circumstances indicate toward Abdur Rouf. Abdur
Rouf @ Rab Howlader Vs. The State & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-198
Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in
issue, but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely
associated with the fact in issue that taken together, they form a chain of
circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally
inferred or presumed. For a crime to be proved, it is not necessary that the
crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances, be
proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the court those persons
who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial
evidence also. The principal fact or "factum probandum" must be
proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from "factum
probandum" that is the probative on evidentiary fact. The State Vs.
Md. Ershad Ali Sikder & Ors. 12 BLT (HCD)-125
Circumstantial evidence
The rule of circumstantial evidence is that the chain of
circumstances must be knitted together closely, so as to led to an irresistible
conclusion that the accused appellant alone had committed offence by excluding
the possibility that any other person might have committed the offence. The
chain of events must be such that the possibility of innocence of accused is
wholly excluded and such facts are incapable of explanation of any, other
reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Rawsan Ara
Begum Vs. The State 15 BLT (HCD) 29
Circumstantial Evidence
P.W. 3 a neighbour of the accused stat that he heard
cries from the room of the victim Sheully in the night of occurrence b he was
not allowed to enter the house and o the following morning he heard that
Sheully was murdered- P.W.6 Doctor, who held the postmortem examination of the
dead body of deceased Sheully Begum found several injuries, P.W.6. stated that
the injuries as found might cause the death of the victim-The wife having died
in the house of her husband in the night of occurrence and being no plausible
and acceptable explanation as to how the victim received those injuries, the circumstantial
evidence relied upon by the prosecution are strong enough to establish the
guilt of the petitioner. Abdus Shaku Miah Vs. The State 3 BLT
(AD)-187
Circumstantial Evidence
The principle and law for convicting the accused only on
the basis of the Circumstantial Evidence is well settled by many decisions such
as 1985 BLD (HCD) 129, Para-21 where the test were re-iterated as to the
Circumstantial Evidence- AIR 1984 (SC) 1622 has laid down singular principle's
followed by 41DLR (1989) 10. Haji Md. Jamaluddin and others Vs. The State
1 BLT (HCD)-23
Circumstantial Evidence
Both the Trial Court and the High Court Division
considered the circumstantial evidence against the petitioner in details and
found that the circumstances are such that no other hypothesis other than the
guilt of the petitioner can be derived therefrom. Although the accused
-petitioner was also injured in the bomb explosion there is absolutely no
suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the bomb was placed in the Beauty
Parlour before the arrival of the petitioner and that the petitioner was in no
bray involved with the possession of the bomb. On the contrary the state of the
accused-petitioner's trouser which was made a material exhibit evidently showed
that the explosion ripped through his trouser, thereby making the
circumstantial evidence even more compelling against the petitioner.
Ranjit Vs. The State 5 BLT (AD)-206
Circumstantial evidence
Law on circumstantial evidence is well settled. It
requires that prosecution is to prove each of the circumstances having a
definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of accused person and, though,
each of the circumstances by itself may not be conclusive but the cumulative
effect of proved circumstances must be so complete that it would exclude every
other hypothesis of innocence and unequivocally point to the guilt of the
accused. The State Vs. Md. Delwer Hossain Faraji 13 BLT (HCD)457
Doubtful- the allegations of rape
It appears from the facts of the case that victim Shakina
alone went to the house of her sister Shahida for having dinner at that house
and was coming back to her house at 10-00 at night accompanied by her sister
with a kupi bati in hand and when the light of the Kupi bati was allegedly
extinguished then her sister went back to her house for lighting the kupi bati
keeping the victim girl in the midway. It has not been explained why the victim
girl was kept above in the midway instead of taking her back with the sister
when she went back home for lighting the kupi bati. This factor also create
doubt about the whole allegations of rape-absence of sign of rape in the
medical report and non-examination of the wearing clothes made the whole case
most doubtful one. Seraj Talukder Vs. The State 6 BLT (HCD)-82
Vital Evidence In a case of rape, doctors report is
a vital evidence to prove the sign of rape but it appears from the record that
although the victim was examined by a doctor but it appears that neither the
doctors was examined in the case nor his report. Seraj Talukder Vs. The
State 6 BLT (HCD)-82. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 Evidence Act, 1872 (I of
1872)
Circumstantial
evidence-accused pre- sumed to be innocent of the charge till guilt is
established by legal evidence-Penal Code, 1860, S.302
Malai
Miah Vs. The State, 13 BLD (HCD)277
When
admittedly a wife sleeps at night with the husband in a room or hut not ap-
proachable by others, the husband is rightly convicted under Section 302 of the
Penal Code on the basis of inderbitable evidence on record. S.302 of the Penal
Code
When
admittedly a wife sleeps at night with the husband in a room or hut which is
not approachable by others and there is no probable circumstances explaining
the cause of death of the wife and she is found to have been killed by in a
brutal manner by strangu- lation, the husband is rightly convicted u/s. 302 of
the Penal Code on the basis of inder- bitable evidence on record against him.
Abdul
Hamid @ Sofaruddin Vs. The State, 13 BLD (HCD) 563 Ref: 38 DLR 235; 40 DLR
(AD)139-Cited
Circumstantial
evidence The general principle relating to circum- stantial evidence is that
the evidence proved in a case must be such as would exclude any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
Since
in the instant case the evidence on record was sufficient and the chain of cir-
cumstances was such as would lead to no other conclusion other than that of the
guilt of the accused the High Court Division was jus- tified in dismissing the
appeal.
Md.
Rezaul Haque and others Vs. The State, 16 BLD (AD) 261 Ref: 37 DLR (AD) 139; 16
DLR(SC)261-Cited
Circumstantial
evidence
When
the circumstantial evidence as to demand and receipt of illegal gratification
is convincing and conclusive, omission of mi- nor details in the evidence of
witnesses does not affect the prosecution case.
Rafiqul
Islam Vs. The State, 14BLD (AD)248
Circumstantial
evidence To base a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, it must be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused and it must exclude all
reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. Haji Md. Jamaluddin Vs. The State,
14BLD(HCD)33
Circumstantial
evidence
There
is complete chain of circumstances that the appellants assaulted deceased
victim Biswajit severely and dealt fatal blow causing his death when appellant
Gulzar participated in the occurrence most actively and he was found by PW4 for
the last time with the de- ceased victim when Gulzar was chasing him by the
eastern side of the khal and the circumstances of the case taken cumulatively
are forming a claim so complete that there is no escaped from the conclusion
that the murder of victim Biswajit was committed by appellant Gulzar and his
associates and none else. Gulzar Biswas &ors. Vs. The State, 20BLD (HCD)
550
Circumstantial
evidence
In
a wife killing case inside the house of the husband it is difficult to find a
witness seeing the act of killing. Even the neighbours generally hesitate to
come forward to depose in the Court. Under such circumstances, the prosecution
as of necessity is to rely on cir- cumstantial evidence. When it is proved that
the victim went to bed with her husband in the fateful night and she was
subsequently found dead a serious obligation is cast upon the accused to
account for the circumstances leading to the death of the wife.
Abdus
Sukur Miah Vs. The State, 16BLD(HCD)337
Ref:
40 DLR(HCD) 122; 27 DLR (HCD) 671; 43 DLR(AD) 92—Cited
Circumstantial
evidence
Circumstantial
evidence to form the basis of conviction must be of a conclusive nature from
which no other reasonable hypothesis other the guilt of the accused be in-
ferred. Suspicion. however strong, is no substitute for legal evidence. Jahur
Ali Vs. The State, 16BLD(HCD) 621
Circumstantial
evidence
The
plea of alibi being disbelieved, a heavy burden is cast on the husband to explain
as to how his wife died with multiple injuries on her person his room where
they were sleeping in the same bed.
Gouranga
Kumar Saha Vs. The State, 17BLD (AD) 120
Circumstantial
evidence
Courts
below on proper assessment of the evidence and circumstances of the case
clearly found that the petitioner had feigned to have been on casual leave on
the false ground of illness and he, in collusion with the co-accused,
misappropriated the money in question and that there was no dacoity in the
Bank as claimed by the defence. Moreover, the defence could not point out any
misreading of evidence. There being no missing link in the chain of
circumstances against the petitioner and his co-accused, the order of con-
viction has been rightly maintained. Md. Badrul Haque Choudhury Vs. The State,
18BLD (AD) 85
Circumstantial
evidence
The
general principle is that the circumstantial evidence proved in a case must
be such as would exclude any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
accused. Since in the instant case the evidence on record was sufficient and
the chain of circumstances was such as would lead to no other conclusion
other than that of the guilt of the accused, the High Court Division was
justified in dismissing the appeal.
Md.
RezaulHaque and others Vs. The State 16BLD(AD)261
Ref:
37 DLR(AD)139; 16 DLR(SC)261- Cited
Circumstantial
evidence
Calling
and taking away of the victim by appellant Billal and co-convict Saiful from
his residence half an hour before his murder, recovery of the body of the
victim from near the Mirpur Bus Stand No. 1, Billal's offer of love and threat
to the P.W.2 Mokseda as to how she would lead conjugal life with the victim
before the occurrence and abscondence of Billal immediately after the occurrence till his arrest about one year after the Occurrence are circumstances
which lead to the irresistible conclusion that he abetted the murder of the
victim. Billal Vs. The State, 20BLD (AD 192 Ref: 37DLR (AD)193; 29 DLR (AD)1;
29 DLR (AD)269-Cited
Circumstantial Evidence
As to prove the case, by circumstantial evidence, well settled principle is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established 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'.
The Appellate Division held that 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 offence must have been done by the accused. The circumstances should be closely scrutinized and the same must be cogent, succinct, reliable and must be of a such a character as to exclude all possibility of the accused being innocent and there should be no weak links, every weak link being a ground of reasonable suspicion, always calling for an acquittal. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. Abu Taher and others -Vs. The State. (Criminal) 17 ALR (AD) 6-17
Circumstantial evidence-Proof of motive is also necessary where the case depends entirely upon circumstantial evidence-For no person commits a crime, particularly a gruesome murder, without some reason, purpose or motive. Shah Alam vs State 42 DLR (AD) 31.
Circumstantial Evidence-In a case based on circumstantial evidence before hypothesis of guilt is drawn up on circumstances, the legal requirement is to prove the circumstances themselves like any other fact beyond reasonable doubt. State vs Arman Ali 42 DLR (AD) 50.
Circumstantial Evidence- Confession lea- ding to the recovery of dead bodies receives ample corroboration from independent circum- stantial evidence such as the presence of a nylon rope on the necks of the dead bodies as confessed -Participation in the commission of murder established. Hazrat Ali & Abdur Rahman vs State 42 DLR 177.
Circumstantial Evidence-Because of the very nature of systematic mass killing, it sometimes difficult on the part of the prosecution to collect direct evidence satisfactorily, since who would be prepared to provide such evidence were the objects of the executions and other witnesses, if available were unlikely to incriminate them.Salauddin Qader Chow- dhury vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 67 DLR (AD) 295
Direct and circumstantial evidence.
The basic distinction between the direct and the circumstantial evidence is that in the former witnesses testify directly of their knowledge as to the facts to be proved, while in the latter proof is given of facts and circumstances from which the Court may infer other facts which reasonable follow. Circumstantial evidence proves and tells the story of a transaction which has already been completed. It is said witnesses may lie but the circumstances do not.
Yadav Ram v. Laxman Singh, AIR 1978 All 123, DB.
Circumstantial evidence-Considerations. According to the Supreme Court in a case dependent wholly on circumstantial evidence, the court before record- ing the conviction on the basis therefor must be firmly satisfied-
(a) that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence be- yond a shadow of doubt;
(b) that the circumstances are of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and
(c) that the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him.
Mahmood v. State of U. P., AIR 1976 SC 69: 1975 Cri LR (SC) 614.
Circumstantial Evidence-Rule regarding it. The rule regarding the cir- cumstantial evidence is well established. A charge based on circumstantial evidence can be supported only in case it is possible to hold that the only in- ference which could be drawn from the proved circumstances was one of guilt and nonelse.
Kusum Kumari v. Board of H. S. & I. Edu U. P., AIR 1973 All 513.
Circumstantial evidence must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1157.
Law regarding circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the law regarding circumstantial evidence is well-settled when a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) The circumstance from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established, (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) 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 none else.
Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1157.
Circumstantial evidence-Definite pointer towards the guilt. It is well- settled when a prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence only, those circumstances should in the first place be firmly established, and further they should be a definite pointer towards the guilt of the accused.
S. S. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 34.
Circumstantial evidence-Principles.-
(i) Each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence.
(ii) The circumstance relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
(iii) The circumstance must be of an incriminating character.
(iv) All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain, no link of which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
Pohalya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1949: 1979 Cr. LJ 1310,
Circumstantial evidence-Conviction when based on it. A conviction of the appellant on the evidence as it stands on the record would not be, in our view, in conformity with the well-settled principle regarding circumstantial evidence, that the circumstances forming that evidence must be conclusively established they must form such a complete chain that it is not only consistent with his guilt but is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.
Rahman v. State of U. P., AIR 1972 SC 110: 1971 SCD 1000; 1972 Cri. LJ 23.
Circumstantial evidence should be consistent. It is well-established that circumstantial evidence in order to warrant conviction should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Jagta v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 1545: 1974 SCC (Cri) 657: 1974 Cri LJ 1010.
Circumstantial evidence- Tests to satisfying it.- The Supreme Court observed that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such such evidence must satisfy three tests. Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Secondly, those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, 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 nonethe else. That is to say the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that the accused's guilt.
Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 917: (1976) 1 SCC 621: 1975 SCC (Cri) 120.
Circumstantial evidence should unmistakably point to one and one conclu- sion. It is now well-settled that in case of circumstantial evidence all the incriminating facts and circumstances should be fully established by cogent and reliable evidence and the facts so established must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained away on any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. In short the circum- stantial evidence should unmistakably point to one and one conclusion only that the accused person and none other perpetrated the alleged crime. If the circumstances proved in a particular case are not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and if they are susceptible of any rational explanation, no conviction can lie.
Hukum Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063: 1977 Cri LJ 639: (1977) 2 SCC 99: 1977 Cri App R (SC) 117: 1977 SCC (Cri) 250: 1977 Cri LR (SC) 248: 1977 UJ (SC) 365 (2): 1977 SC Cri R 275.
Circumstantial evidence-Considerations in.Circumstantial evidence must be of a conclusive nature and circumstances must not be capable of a duality of explanations. It does not however mean that the Court is bound to accept any exaggerated, capricious or ridiculous explanation which may suggest itself to a highly imaginative mind. It is well to remember that the Evidence Act considers a fact as "proved" when [after considering the matters before it the Court either believes it to exist, or considers it existence so probable that a prudent mind ought under the circumstances of the parti- cular case to act upon the supposition that it exists. It is also worthy of remembrance that a Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their rela- tions to the facts of the particular case.
State of Maharashtra v. Champa Lal, AIR 1981 SC 1675.
Circumstances which directly prove the guilt-For circumstantial evidence to furnish evidence of guilt it has to be such as it can not be explained on any other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
State (Delhi Admn.) v. V. C. Shukla, AIR 1980 SC 1382.
Circumstances must be of conclusive nature. The Supreme Court obser-ved-
We are constrained to observe that the High Court has not made a correct approach to this case. It has violated the rule of circumstantial evidence that where circumstances are suspectible of two equally possible inferences, the Courts should accept that inference which favours the accused rather than an inference which goes in favour of the prosecution. Secondly, the High Court does not appear to have kept in view the rule of appreciation of circumstantial evidence that the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency so as to be totally inconsistent with his innocence and are not explainable on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1164: 1977 Cri LJ 955: 1977 Cri App R (SC) 127: 1977 Cri LR.
Circumstantial evidence-Any missing link may be fatal the prosecution. It is well-established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to bear in mind the comulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.
Umed Bhai v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1978 SC 424.
Circumstantial evidence-Should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (See-Hanumant Govind Nargend Kar v. State of M. P., AIR 1952 SC 343; Palvindar Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354; Charan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1967 SC 520).
S. P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 826.
Circumstantial evidence-Presumption under it. It is contended that since the appellant was a party to the dragging of the deceased he must be presumed to have committed the murder. The Supreme Court observed that in the case of circumstantial evidence no such presumption can be drawn unless the circumstances proved are completely incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
Naresh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 1168: 1980 Cri LJ 920: 1980 SC Cri R 187: (1980) 2 SCC 358: 1980 SCC (Cri) 453: (1980) 2 SCWR 80: 1980 UJ (SC) 617.
Circumstantial evidence at their face value where do not exclude the possi- bility of innocence of the accused. The Supreme Court observed-
Even if we take these circumstances at their face value they do not
exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused. There was no eye-witness to prove that the appellant had inflicted any knife blow on Bishan, and in the absence of such evidence coupled with the fact that the knife which was snatched from the appellant did not contain any blood-stains, it cannot be held that the circumstances proved in the case are incompatible with the innocence of the accused. It is possible that the accused may have been coming from some other locality with a knife and since he was chased by some persons he waived the knife in order to protect him or to scare away the crowed. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and we find that there is no legal evidence against the appellant on the basis of which his conviction can be sustained.
It is true that Bishan had died on 30th, but there is no evidence to connect his death with the assault of 25th, because admittedly Bishan was discharged from the Hospital on 26th, that is, the next day. In these circum- stances, therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court was not at all justified in convicting the appellant without there being any legal evidence to support the conviction.
Jagdish Prasad v. State, AIR 1979 SC 1510.
Circumstantial evidence points to the conclusion that it was the appellant who caused death and none other. The plea sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant that the fire was accidental seems to be an afterthought and is negatived by the fact that no cooking material was found in the living room where the incident appears to have taken place as also by the fact that the primus stove recovered and seized from the living room was admittedly unser- viceable. That the appellant committed the ghasty crime is also proved from the recovery of bottle containing kerosene oil, burnt match sticks, match box and half-burnt clothes of the deceased as also from the fact that he did not suggest either to P. W. 4 Murari Lal or P. W. 5 Gulab Singh and the stage of cross-examination that on their arrival at the scene of occurrence on hearing the screams on the afternooon of July 5, 1971, he gave out that the incident was accidental. Thus the evidence inevitably points to the conclusion that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who intentionally caused the death of the deceased.
Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 190.
Circumstantial evidence-Its probative link must be certain. Every evi- dentiary circumstance is a probative link, strong or weak, and must be made out with certainty. Link after link forged firmly by credible testimony may form a strong chain of sure guilt binding the accused. Each link taken sepa- rately may just suggest when hooked on to the next and on again may manacle the accused inescapably. Only then a concatenation of the incriminating facts suffice to a man.
Fogla & S. K. Jalil v. Stute of W. B., AIR 1975 SC 241: 1974 Cri LJ 1249: 1974 SCC (Cri) 429: 1974 SCD 582.
Circumstantial evidence-Conviction of accused. Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary probabilities.
Awadhi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 69: 1970 UJ (SC) 776: 1971 Cri LJ 23: 1970 Pat LJR 713: (1971) 2 SC Cri R 1141.
Chain of circumstances should be complete. Where the case depends upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon must have been fully established connecting the complete chain of the evidence so that there would be no reasonable doubt at all.
Kulbir v. State of Haryana, 1979 Chand. Cri C. 198, DB: 1980 Cri LJ NOC 41, P & H.
Circumstantial evidence-Nature of. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court observed that the circumstantial evidence should be of conclusive nature excluding all sorts of hypothesis.
Relied on:-
1953 Cri LJ 125,(SC). State v. Ram Avtar, 1980 Cri LJ NOC 100 (Del.)
Circumstantial evidence-Must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relics must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It is not to be expected that in every depending on circumstantial evidence, the whole of the law governing cases of circumstantial evidence should be set out in the judgment. Legal principles are not magic incantations and their importance lies more in their application to a given set of facts than in their recital in the judgment. The simple expectation is that the judgment must show 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.
Shankar Lal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765.
Circumstantial evidence-Other possibilities. It is well-settled that before a court can act on circumstantial evidence. The evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court further observed, even if the appellant was found with the buffaloes belongs to the deceased, it is quite possible that he may have got hold of the buffaloes from some and field and tried to steal them away. For these reasons, therefore, the evidence in this case is not conclusive to prove the participation of the appellant in the crime alleged against him.
Joga Gola v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1982 SC 1227: 1982 SCC (Cri) 141.
The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that circumstantial evidence should inevitably be to the conclusion that the accuseds and the accused only were the perpetrators of the offence and such evidence should be incompatible with the Innocence of the accused. Taslimuddin vs State 44 DLR 136.
Circumstantial evidence may be and frequently is more cogent than the evidence of eye–witnesses. It is not difficult to produce false evidence of eye–witnesses. It is, on the other hand, extremely difficult to produce circumstantial evidence of a convincing character and therefore, circumstantial evidence, if convincing, is more cogent than the evidences of eyewitnesses. State vs Moslem 55 DLR 116.