In accordance with the work A Dictionary of Law, this is a description of Circumstantial Evidence : (circumstantial evidence, indirect evidence). 0000001300 00000 n xref In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. 0000018441 00000 n Direct evidence does not require supplementation and does not require interference to form a connection between various facts.

The conduct of the in-laws and the husband if established as cruel and inhumane, the circumstances surrounding the suicide of the deceased can lead to conviction. /Outlines 31 0 R The conduct of C is inconsistent with the conduct of an innocent man. [iii] Information pertaining to the said chain of events in civil or criminal cases establishes the existence of a fact or any assertion a party seeks to prove. 0000003863 00000 n An example of circumstantial evidence would be, if police retrieves stolen goods from the house of a suspect, although it establishes that the suspect has stolen the good but does not necessarily establish guilty or the fact that he must have stolen the goods. ��h-`g�> Ǵ�A`�O��7, vD��090���9{��;wϞ�u����3g� ��ť�+�J�J3QR;6堠�6�e�����

C� b ; � 0000000017 00000 n [xvii] The proximity between the time of death and last seen together is essential to conclude that the accused and deceased were last seen together without the probability of other persons coming in between exists.

All other hypothesis should be excluded except that one that is required to be proved. 0000018595 00000 n Circumstantial requires a certain level of corroboration which can be established through the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstance. Further, the evidence should be cogently and firmly established. 2. 0000005013 00000 n

0000000688 00000 n In the case of dowry death, the evidence provided by the victim’s family was considered reliable forming a chain of circumstances leading to the murder. /ID [<28bf4e5e4e758a4164004e56fffa0108><28bf4e5e4e758a4164004e56fffa0108>] As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. << Recovery of goods in the house of a suspect is a circumstantial evidence as the goods might be placed there by someone else, thus not establishing complete guilt but forming a chain of events. Evidence can be broadly divided into two sub- categories, direct and indirect circumstantial evidence. [ii] Soumya Chowdhary, Introduction to the law of evidence in India, LEGAL BITES (Feb 1,2019, 7:00 PM) https://www.legalbites.in/introduction-indian-evidence-act/.eval(ez_write_tag([[300,250],'lawtimesjournal_in-banner-1','ezslot_12',115,'0','0'])); [iii]  Sudershani Ray, Circumstantial Evidence in India, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA,(Feb 1, 2019, 7:49 PM) http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l136-Circumstantial-Evidence.html. [xv] State of Goa v. Pandurang Mohite, AIR 2009 SC 1066; Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P., 2006 (10) SCC 172; State of U.P. A is an eye witness of murder being committed. What are the various kinds of evidence can be used as corroboration for circumstantial evidence? 0 ���y�1!Z*��ƥ@%�L��x����lRr�O�JJ�;6�\�!%å/t���:@@;��j�Xc q'{%��*ArF�V{��4e.k�K�T�����FCG� w00J �0���d0)w�Ti��0�"0Y%�l���bI�X.0iF��d�=`�1��s �B����`���� �@Ӕ ��B`�d�bAp��J���, ���4™/fp�͸�X�����t�2Ǎw ����c�, �����HW1p��˷�����J�*Fu� �J� This would shift the burden of proof on the suspect to establish his innocence. Edited by Shuvneek Hayer I am Anushka from O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat, pursuing BA.LLB (2016).

/E 18890 This would shift the burden of proof on the suspect to establish his innocence.eval(ez_write_tag([[580,400],'lawtimesjournal_in-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',111,'0','0'])); In the case of Holland v. United States, the US Supreme Court concluded, that fundamentally there is no intrinsic difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

[ix] Moreover, all the circumstances should indicate towards the guilt of the accused and should be inconsistent with his innocence. There is no inherent requirement to provide proof of motive, if the link between the accused and commission of the offence cannot be broken, it is immaterial to establish motive. If the circumstances are limited to just “last seen together” without further corroboration, conviction cannot be based on the said assertion. If the circumstances are limited to just “last seen together” without further corroboration, conviction cannot be based on the said assertion. [viii] State of U.P.

/Pages 17 0 R Circumstances from which guilt is established are required to be proved and impenetrable, Circumstances should be conclusive in nature and should form a link between the criminal and commission of the offence. 20 0 obj /Prev 33812 "����30 V�p#�d�n�������g����M``�I�g���7@� R� [xv] The doctrine of “last seen together” shifts the onus onto the accused to establish his innocence. Thus, increasing the presumption of guilt.eval(ez_write_tag([[300,250],'lawtimesjournal_in-box-4','ezslot_10',113,'0','0'])); The conduct of the in-laws and the husband if established as cruel and inhumane, the circumstances surrounding the suicide of the deceased can lead to conviction. A person's guilt of a charged crime may be proven b y circumstantial evidence, if that eviden ce, while not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.3 /H [ 790 284 ] Circumstantial evidence as per Section 106: Conduct of the accused plays a vital role in corroborating or establishing circumstantial evidence.

<< The conduct of the accused after the incident (absconding), ballistic report, presence at the scene of crime established by various testimonies and the circumstantial evidence connecting the vehicle and the cartridges during the commission of crime formed a chain of impenetrable evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 19 0 obj An example of circumstantial evidence would be, if police retrieves stolen goods from the house of a suspect, although it establishes that the suspect has stolen the good but does not necessarily establish guilty or the fact that he must have stolen the goods.