The word “Evidence” as defined by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 means and includes -
(1) 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 statements are called oral evidence; (2) All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court; Such documents are called documentary evidence.
The word “Evidence”, considered in relation to law, includes all the legal means, exclusive of
mere argument, which tend to prove or disprove any matter of fact, t he truth of which is submitted to the judicial investigation. This term and the word proof are used as synonyms, but the latter is applied by accurate logicians rather to the effect of evidence than to evidence itself. ‘Evidence’ has been defined to be any matter of fact, the effect, tendency, or design of which is
to produce in mind a persuasion, affirmative or disaffirmative, of the existence of some other matter of fact. “ ‘Evidence’ means the testimon y, whether oral, documentary or real, which 1
may be legally received in order to prove or disprove some fact in dispute.”
As far as Circumstantial Evidence is concerned, it is one of the established principles of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. c ircumstances. However the Court must adopt a cautious approach while basing its conviction purely on circumstantial evidence. As evidence, there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. The only difference is that as a proof, the former directly establishes the commission of offence whereas the latter does so by placing circumstances which lead to irresistible inference of guilt.
2
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Circumstantial Evidence” Evidence” as the Evidence based on inference and
not on personal knowledge or observation. Also termed as Indirect Evidence or oblique Evidence. Indirect evidence( called by the civilians oblique, and most commonly known as circumstantial evidence) is that which is applied to the principal fact, indirectly, or through the medium or othe r facts, by establishing certain circumstances or minor facts, already descr ibed as evidentiary, from which the principal fact, already described as evidentiary, from which the principal fact is extracted and gathered 3
by a process of special inference.
1
th
Phipson on Evidence, 2 (15 Edn., 2000). Makbul Ahammad V. Abdul Rahaman Akand, (1953) 1 Cal 348; 3 Alexander M Burill, A Treatise on the Nature, Principles and Rules of Circumstantial Evidence 4 (1868). 2
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-
Evidence can be divided into direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence proves the point without the need to draw any conclusions. Circumstantial evidence requires the jury to draw a conclusion that some relevant fact occurred. You have direct evidence where a witness testifies directly about the fact that is to be proved, based on what he claims to have seen or heard or felt with his own senses, and the only question is whether you believe the witness. You have circumstantial evidence where the witness cannot testify directly about the fact that is to be proved, but you are presented with evidence of other facts and you are then asked to draw reasonable inferences from them about the fact which is to be proved. Example- Your daughter might tell you one morning that she sees the mailman at your mailbox. That is direct evidence that the mailman has been to your house. On the other hand, she might tell you only that she sees mail in the mailbox. That is circumstantial evidence that the mailman has been there; no one has seen him, but you can reasonably infer that he has been there since there is mail in the box.
The term ‘circumstantial evidence’ refers to information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action. The purpose of presenting such evidence is to enable the the court to reach a conclusion that indirectly establishes the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Does it sound quite confusing? So let’s put it in simple words, Indian law on circumstantial evidence can be explained as indirect evidence distinct from direct evidence, which is used to draw inferences about a sequence of events pertaining to criminal or civil litigation. An example will help you to understand the concept better, if a witness testifies that he saw T om shooting Harry, this testimony serves as direct evidence and proves Tom guilty of murder. However, if the witness says that he saw Harry in an injured condition and Tom with a smoking gun at the crime scene, that becomes circumstantial evidence. Tom could be either an innocent bystander or the actual offender; but there would be a need for other evidence to support circumstantial evidence and thereby prove that Tom is guilty.
Difference between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence-
Direct Evidence 1. Direct evidence is evidence to the precise point in issue. 2. Direct evidence directly establishes the commission of the offence. 3. Direct evidence is known as positive evidence. 4. Example: A murdered B. C and D saw the incidence of murder and deposed before the court. A and B’s evidence is direct evidence. 5. Direct evidence is superior to the circumstantial evidence. 6. Direct evidence is that what the witness saw the incident with their own eyes, or heard with their own ears, and perceived with their own senses. 7. By the direct evidence, the court easily and safely comes to a c onclusion. 8. Direct evidence is safer than circumstantial evidence. 9. There are two chances of errors in direct evidence: Mistake of the witnesses; o
o
Mendacity on the part of witnesses.
10. In direct evidence, the witness deposes the evidence taking oath. Even then, there are chances of telling false. Circumstantial Evidence 1. Circumstantial evidence is that which relates to a series of other facts in issue, which have been found to be so closely associated with that fact in relation to the cause and effect that they lead to some definite conclusion. 2. The circumstantial evidence does so by placing circumstances, which lead to irresistible inference of guilty. 3. Circumstantial evidence is known as presumptive evidence. 4. Example: B was murdered, at 5-pm. In his own house. C saw A coming from the house of B at 515pm. With blood shredded knife in his hand. D gave the evidence that A and B seriously quarreled on the day before the occurrence of murder. E police officer seized the blood shredded knife from the almirah in the house of A. F-expert deposed that the blood of the decreased and blood shredded knife of A was one same. These chains of evidences are “circumstantial evidence”. 5. Circumstantial evidence is inferior to the direct evidence. 6. Under the Indian evidence act, “circumstantial evidence” is included under the expression “relevant facts” and it is provided that all “relevant facts” require to be proved by some evidence oral or documentary, that is to say, by direct evidence. 7. Circumstantial evidence, to be relied upon, must not only oint to the inference to be drawn by the court, but it must be of such a nature that it can possibly lead to no other inference. 8. Circumstantial evidence is a substitute, where the direct evidence is not available. 9. There are three chances of errors in circumstantial evidence: o Mistake of the witnesses; o
Mendacity on the part of witness;
o
The inference from the fact proved may be fallacious.
10. Circumstantial evidence is a series of facts. It is a chain of evidences. The correct inference can be drawn from all these series of facts. Persons may tell lie, but the facts of circumstances will not. There are two types of evidence which you may use to determine the facts of a case: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. The law allows either type of proof in a criminal trial. There are two things to keep in mind about circumstantial evidence:
The first one is that you may draw inferences and conclusions only
from facts that have been proved to you.
The second rule is that any inferences or conclusions which you draw
must be reasonable and natural, based on your common sense and experience of life. In a chain of circumstantial evidence, it is not required that every one of your inferences and conclusions be inevitable, but it is required that each of them be reasonable, that they all be consistent with one another, and that together they establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Direct evidence is something that a witness can testify that they have directly experience first-hand. For Example: Mary was outside yesterday and it was raining out. Mary can testify that it was raining out yesterday. Her testimony is direct evidence of the fact that it was raining. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that allows a fact to be inferred. For example: Mary went outside yesterday and it was wet out, and there were many puddles on the ground. While Mary did not see the rain, this is circumstantial evidence that it did in fact rain yesterday.
Significance of Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence may be used to establish any element of a crime. It is usually weaker than direct evidence because the jury must infer that a fact exist in addition to assessing the credibility of the witness. The jury must also decide the weight to be given to each fact introduced into evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be used to show that the defendant had the ability to commit the crime. This is done when the crime is committed in such a manner that the suspect must have had some ability that the average person would not possess. These situations may include special skills, technical knowledge, tools to accomplish the crime, access to the location where the crime occurred, or unusual physical or mental capacity. Motive can also be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt. A wide variety of motives can be used in crimes. Some examples are greed, hatred, and jealousy is among the most common.
Indian Laws: Five Golden Rules of Circumstantial Evidence
Here are the five golden rules set under the Indian law to prove that cases based on circumstantial evidences:
The circumstances (based on which the inference of the crime is to be drawn) should be fully established. The fact so established should be consistent only with theory of the fault of the offender and not otherwise.
The circumstances should be definite and conclusive in nature.
The circumstances shall not include any other possible hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
The series of evidence must be complete. It must leave no gaps that may conclude the innocence of the accused. The chain of evidence must also prove that in all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused.
In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 CrLJ 1104, it was pointed out that 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. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
Sources ReferredBlack’s Law Dictionary
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE-THE-BEST-EVIDENCE333.asp#.UGXZAJh1-0t http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l136-Circumstantial-Evidence.html http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence
