Principles regarding conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the Court must come to the conclusion that the accused must be guilty before the Court can proceed to convict the accused and merely and finding / conclusion that the accused may be proved guilty is not sufficient. In simple terms what this would mean is that there should be no other plausible explanation or possibility that explains the circumstantial evidence except that the accused must be guilty.

2. The circumstances should be such that they exclude every other possible hypothesis/explanation except the one to be proved (guilt of accused) . The chain of evidence of should must be so complete that leaves no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have done by the accused.

3. It is a settled law that the suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

4. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is.

5. An accused is presumed innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is only the accused and the accused alone who has committed the crime.

7. The non explanation or false explanation of the circumstantial evidence by the accused cannot be taken as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances.

The Supreme Court has specified the following principles for establishing a case based on circumstantial evidence :-

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled

before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be

fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or

should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction

between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji

Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ

1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty

before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long

and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

(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.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a

case based on circumstantial evidence.”

The Supreme Court has dealt with a similar issue in the case titled Raja Naykar Versus The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 902 / 2023) .