If a witness says, "I saw Larry kill Susan," then that is direct evidence of Larry's guilt for Susan's murder. In contrast, circumstantial evidence is evidence that proves a fact or event by inference.
For example, if the skies have been overcast all day, and rain was predicted, and your spouse comes home from work soaking wet, that might be circumstantial evidence that it is raining. If a witness says, "Larry came home from Susan's house the night that she was killed, covered in blood," that is circumstantial evidence of Larry's guilt.
Prosecutors can rely on either direct or circumstantial evidence, and courts usually tell juries that neither type of evidence is necessarily superior. But, unlike direct evidence, circumstantial evidence may be consistent with other facts. For example, if Larry stopped on the site of an accident to help an injured motorist on his way home from Susan's house, that could explain his bloody state. However, the fact that one scenario is much more likely and reasonable than others does not convert circumstantial evidence into direct evidence.
Larry's appearance at home covered in blood may be strong circumstantial evidence that he killed Susan and, without some other explanation, would almost certainly be sufficient to convict him , but it is not direct evidence. The circumstantial evidence jury instruction tells the jury that in order to convict a defendant based on circumstantial evidence, the jury must not only find that the circumstantial evidence is consistent with defendant's guilt, but also that the evidence is not reasonably consistent with innocence.
For example, California courts instruct juries that: "Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you must be convinced that the People [through the prosecutor] have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.
However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable. So, if Larry offers a reasonable, alternate explanation for his blood-soaked clothes, the jury must accept it.
The case was wholly dependent upon circumstantial evidence. The prosecution had proved the chain completely and therefore he was convicted and his appeal was dismissed. There are also a catena of landmark decisions where Supreme Court has refrained from convicting an accused on circumstantial evidence. In this very case, Justice SB Sinha observed that: It is now well settled that in a case where an offence is said to have been established on circumstantial evidence alone, indisputably all the links in the chain must be found to be complete It was also held in this case by the Apex Court that a conviction can safely be based on circumstantial evidence provided it satisfies the following tests.
There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. Such circumstances have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred.
Circumstance of last seen together by itself not enough to lead to inference of guilt of accused. Connectivity between the accused and the crime required to be established.
In State of UP v Ashok Kumar Srivastava Cri LJ , it was pointed out by Apex Court 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 fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. In Ram Das v State of Maharashtra , AIR SC , it has been held by Supreme Court that where circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two possible inferences the court should accept that inference which favours the accused rather than an inference which goes in favour of the prosecution.
It has been held by Supreme Court that where circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two possible inferences the court should accept that inference which favours the accused rather than an inference which goes in favour of the prosecution.
In Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab , AIR SC , the Supreme Court has pointed out that in cases depending on circumstantial evidence Courts should safeguard themselves against the danger of basing their conclusion on suspicions, no matter howsoever strong. In Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar v State of Maharashtra, 3 SCC 16, the Apex Court observed that, It is well settled that no one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, though strong it may be.
It also cannot be disputed that when we take into account conduct of an accused, his conduct must be looked at in its entirety. There should be no fact which establishes his innocence.
In Lakhan Pal v State of MP , AIR SC , the Supreme Court held that from the fact that accused and his brother the deceased , were seen together in the field before the event cannot be irresistible conclusion that accused had committed his murder. In State of Himachal Pradesh v Raj Kumar 2 Crimes SC , it was held by Supreme Court that, In case of circumstantial evidence, accused cannot be convicted unless and until chain of circumstances is not so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
Speaking for myself, I too very strongly feel that in case of circumstantial evidence, if two views are possible, the benefit of doubt must go always to the accused and not the other way around.
This is more so in cases where death penalty is the ultimate punishment because as I said earlier once it is executed, there can be no turnaround and an innocent executed can never come back to life again.
Therefore Courts must be liberal in not pronouncing death penalty in cases where conviction is solely on basis of circumstantial evidence alone. Our Supreme Court too has taken this liberal view in many cases and it is not possible for me to enumerate all of them here even though I have mentioned a few above!
But I do agree that death penalty may be given in an exceptional case also where circumstantial evidence alone proves beyond a straw of doubt accused's culpability in the heinous crime as we have seen even our Supreme Court awarding the same where it found it necessary to award the same. But before awarding death penalty or even any other sentence of conviction in case of circumstantial evidence, it is the bounden duty of all the Courts from bottom to top to make ensure that all the parameters as the Apex Court have laid down in various landmark cases are fully satisfied and all the circumstances very strongly implicates the accused and who has no convincing defence to counter them in any manner whatsoever!
Let me now conclude by again citing Supreme Court. It held in MG Agarwal v State of Maharashtra , AIR SC that, Although circumstantial evidence is very helpful in establishing facts, yet its importance is exaggerated by saying that witnesses may tell a lie but circumstances cannot.
Their use needs some guidance. To form basis of a conviction in criminal cases the circumstantial evidence must be of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the guilt and is consistent only with his guilt. It also held in Harendra Narain Singh v State of Bihar , AIR SC , that, There is this basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the court should adopt the view favourable to the accused.
In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and therefore, it is right to recall the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the jury in Reg v Hodge, 3 Lewin , where he said : 'The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole ; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting to take for granted some fact inconsistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete'.
Comments There are no comments for this article. Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account. The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article. Are Criminal Lawyers bothered by their conscience Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers?
I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft. Effect of Terrorism and Organized Crimes on Indian Society Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated. Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs.
Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated.
It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence.
The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law. Even Heinous, Brutal Crimes May Not Be Rarest of Rare Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission. Successive Applications For Recalling Witnesses Should Not Be Encouraged Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in For over ten years he has helped his clients, challenging evidence and protecting their rights.
He understands the procedures and requirements for evidence to be collected, used, and challenged in court. Contact William Jaksa for your consultation. Sep 30, Evidence. May 10, Evidence. Mar 19, Evidence. Feb 4, Evidence. Dec 3, Evidence. Plea Deal , Toronto Criminal Lawyer. In an attempt to clear the high number of cases currently awaiting trial in the Ontario Courts, the government has created a new guilty plea certificate system that incentivizes those accused to plead guilty by providing legal representation for a guilty plea.
Criminal Trials. A summary offence is considered a less serious offence and comes with less severe penalties if you are convicted. DUI Attorney. November 18, For example, if an assault happened on O'Connell Street at 6. In that situation, you are giving the court circumstantial evidence. The court can draw conclusions from the fact that the accused was on O'Connell Street at 6pm, but you have not given evidence about whether the accused attacked a person.
Generally, circumstantial evidence can be admitted in court. However, the courts are careful when the only evidence in a case is circumstantial evidence.
0コメント