panchsheel-1

Cases of Circumstantial Evidence
The Doctrine of Panchsheel
The Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court enunciated the principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

While dismissing the appeal against the conviction in a rape-murder case, a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta summarised the principles as follows :

(i)The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness’s evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked.

 

(ii)Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated.

(iii). Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.

(iv). The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt.
 

(v)The judgment must reflect 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.

Cases of Circumstantial Evidence are those where there is no eye witness and in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State Of Maharastra, 1984 Air 1622, 1985 SCR ( 1) 88. the Five Golden Principles were propounded by the Apex court to deal with the cases of the Circumstantial evidence.

 

in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh  it is settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete that it is consistent only with the guilt of accused and every other possible hypothesis is excluded.

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *