The quality of investigation and collection of evidence from the circumstances of the crime and from the scene of the crime become important in crimes where there is no eye witness and the identity of the offender is also not known. This article discusses the legal nuances related to circumstantial evidence
Certain crimes are committed at the spur of the moment due to some sudden provocation or seething anger or uncontrollable passion. At the time of the commission of such a crime, the offender does not bother whether he is committing a crime in full public view at a public place and there is quite a good chance that eye witnesses are available to witnessed the commission of the crime. But if a crime is committed at a secluded place, there is possibility of there being no eye witness and the offender, after committing crime, though committed in a fit of anger, realizes that the hands of law may reach him and he will have to suffer theconsequences of committing the crime. A fear grips him and he tries to remove the signs of crime to evade law. The other crimes are planned and premeditated, mostly committed either by professional criminals or by persons who want to take revenge or accomplish a criminal act for some purpose. The offenders of such crimes ensure that there is no eye witness and most of the time also take precaution so that no proof of involvement in the crime is left on the spot. Police investigation in the cases where eye witness are there is not difficult. The eye witness’s version is recorded, the identity of criminal is revealed or found out and rest of the investigation is completed by the police by the arrest of the criminal. However, for crimes where there is no eye witness andthe identity of the offender is also not known, the police investigation becomes difficult and has to be very careful and highly scientific and technical. It is in such cases, the quality of investigation and collection of evidence from the circumstances of the crime, from the sceneof the crime becomes important. Police may reach the offender but proving crime against the offender in a court of law is a challenging job. The law presumes every criminal as innocent and in case of offences where there is no eye witness, the legal maxim is more heinous and serious the crime, stricter the proof.
Although Evidence Act or Cr.PC does not provide a different standard of proof for proving criminal acts than what is provided for proving civil wrong, over the period, the criminal jurisprudence has developed a principle that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and let hundred guilty persons go scot free, lest one innocent person be convicted. Keeping these principles in mind, the law of circumstantial evidence developed in this country is that that the chain of circumstances pointing out to the guilt of the accused must be complete and there should be no missing link and there should be no possibility of a second hypothesis from the circumstances proved that the accused may not be guilty. In considering circumstantial evidence, the courts have been quite susceptible and have always insisted upon stricter proof.
Today with the advancement of science and technology, the tools of investigation have also become more sophisticated. Use of modern communication technology by the offenders for communication either with the victim or with the co-accused has made the job of the police easy, and the police is able to find out by seeking information from the service provider about the identity of the persons who called the victims soon before the commission of the crime and who were present in the surrounding areas and making calls from particular cell phone towers to anywhere in the world, and thereafter police can sift from this data and find about the presence of suspects around the scene of crime. Scientific investigation by the police involves lifting from the scene of the crime, all possible evidence which may link the offender with the commission of the crime and throw light on the identity of the offender.
"The golden rule for the evaluation of circumstantial evidence is that every link in the chain of events as narrated by the prosecution must be completed for any conviction to take place on the basis of the circumstantial evidence."
The Supreme Court in Bodhraj vs. State of J&K AIR 2002 SC 3164 had observed that it was not necessary that crime must be seen to have been committed. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact can be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from evidentiary facts. The circumstantial evidence may not be direct to the point in issue and it may consist of various other facts which closely associated with the facts and issues, taken together, form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.
Relatives, friends, partners, associates often get involved in crime either due to jealousy, greed or lust, business rivalry, family honour, etc. Such crimes are well planned crimes. The evidence of last seen together becomes important in such cases. However, the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible.
The circumstances proved by prosecution need to have proximate relation to the actual occurrence. Even the defence canrely on proved circumstances to show improbability of commission of the crime. In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1084.SC 1622, the defence taken by the accused was that it was highly improbable that he would commit murder of his wife on a day before the bethrothal ceremony of his sister was fixed. The ceremony was as important as marriage itself and murdering his wife would have brought disgrace anddistraction not only to his family but also his sister. This argument found favour with the Supreme Court.
While considering the circumstances proved against an accused, the Courts have considered absence of explanation of an obvious fact by accused or a false explanation given by the accused as an additional circumstance to complete the chain and to lend force to the prosecution case. It is also settled principle of law that the prosecution has to stand on its own leg and cannot rely upon the weakness of the defence of the accused. The circumstances proved by the prosecution must convincingly point to the guilt of the accused. Giving of false explanation or false answers during examination under section 313 is considered only as an additional assurance and circumstance to lend support to the case of the prosecution.
In murder trials, if motive is proved, then that would supply a link in chain of circumstantial evidence but failure of prosecution to prove the motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. It is also important that all incriminating material proved by the prosecution during trial against the accused, must be put to the accused under section 313 Cr.PC so as to afford an opportunity to the accused to give his explanation to those circumstances.
The background facts and the circumstantial evidence brought on record to prove the crime must be tested with pragmatic approach. The court must not lose sight of the circumstances prevailing in the family, in joint business or in the area or the fact that the accused persons were very influential and powerful persons with the result that witnesses would get terrified and would not come forward. The circumstances should not be rejected by the court for flimsy reasons. In a reported case, the finger prints of the accused were found at the spot and the accused was also found in possession of ornamentsbelonging to the deceased. However, the evidence of finger prints was not considered on the ground that the deceased may have gone there only for committing theft. The courts must keep in mind the normal behaviour of a person. Any thief, if he is professional, would be knowing that he may be implicated in murder if he steals from dead bodies of recently murdered person. If the thief is not a professional thief, he would also hesitate in stealing anything from the dead bodies of persons killed recently and stain his hands with blood so as to leave marks of his finger prints. One could only presume that the person who stole the jewellery and killed the person were one and the same. The court, however, rejected the scientific evidence of presence of blood stained finger prints on the ground that the accused may have gone there only for theft and not for murder. There is no doubt that the criminal jurisprudence is built around the principle that let hundred guilty persons go scot free lest one innocent be convicted but too much adherence to this principle and letting off criminals on the society in the name of benefit of doubt is not doing justice. The test laid down for circumstantial evidence itself is quite strict. But if circumstantial evidence is proved to the hilt, the consequences drawn from such circumstantial evidence must be that of aprudent man and any imaginary explanation should not be given to reject the circumstantial evidence.
While considering circumstantial evidence, one must not forget the implications ofsection 106 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, anything which is within the special knowledge of the accused has to be proved by him. If the accused absconds soon after thecommission of the crime and later on gives a false reason for his leaving the place, then it is a strong circumstance pointing out to the guilt of the accused. It is for the accused to prove, by cogent evidence the reason of his absence as this is something within his special knowledge. Similarly, an effort to remove evidence or clean the scene of crime and not reporting the crime to the police when it has taken place within the four walls of the house or making the murder look like a natural death or trying to cremate the body without intimation to the relatives of the deceased or one’s own relatives are all circumstances which can be taken into consideration by the Court for convicting the accused. Recovery of looted/stolen property belonging to the deceased is also a strong circumstance indicating implication of the accused.
Appreciation of the circumstantial evidence in a pragmatic manner results from the long experience of the judge who has held criminal trials and has been dealing with the criminal cases. It is, therefore, necessary that the judges who are assigned criminal cases at higher judicial level should have sufficient experience of criminal trials or criminal practice so as to have a long and sufficient exposure to the criminal trials. Criminal trials train a judge to have deep insight into the criminal behaviour and the behaviour of witnesses and their veracity. It is suggested that in order to do justice to the victims as well as to the accused persons involved for hearing criminal cases and appeals, a separate criminal court division right from the trial court till the Apex Court should be there and the judges of these divisions should be drawn from the persons who have long and sufficient experience of criminal trials/criminal practice.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
