Published on: 02 November 2022 at 10:29 IST
Court – Supreme Court of India
Citation – Ramanand v/s State of UP 2022
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that circumstantial evidence is a situation when the direct evidence does not lead to any special inference. It is held that in case of circumstantial evidence, there are always at least two facts to be considered:
a) The Factum Probandum, or say, the principal fact (the fact the existence of which is supposed or proposed to be proved; &
b) The Factum Probans or the evidentiary fact (the fact from the existence of which that of the factum probandumis inferred).
Para – 46
Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows:
1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established;
2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature;
3. The circumstances, if 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; and
4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra