circumstantial evidence

8. What is circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence is the opposite of direct evidence. When no eyewitness is
available, issues can be decided based on circumstantial evidence.

135
9. What are the rules regarding circumstantial evidence?
Tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Hanumant Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343, 1953 CriLJ 129, 1952 1 SCR] is applied in
the matter of evaluation of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. This has been
reiterated in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra [1984
AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88] in the following terms:
“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established.
xxxx
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, and
(5) 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 act must have been
done by the accused.
These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of
the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”
In quasi-judicial proceedings, relaxed norms are applied based on the principle of
pre-ponderance of probability rather than conclusive nature of evidence and
excluding every other hypothesis.