Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Circumstantial evidence. - Circumstantial evidence is of great value as it enables the Court to draw inferences as to the existence or non- existence of a fact in issue. But the cir- cumstances from which the conclusion is drawn must first be fully established. They should be of a conclusive nature and they should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused; otherwise, the accused will be entitled to the benefit of doubt. In other words there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The principles to be followed in criminal cases based upon circumstantial evidence have by a long trend of judicial decisions been held to be as follows: (1) The circumstances from which an inference adverse to the accused is sought to be drawn must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and must be conclusively connected with the facts sought to be inferred thereform and (2) in order to justify an inference of guilt the circumstances from which such an inference is sought to be drawn must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. For drawing an inference of guilt from circumstantial evidence the circumstances estab- lished must be such that the only possible inference, which a prudent man can draw from them, taken together is that the accused committed the crime and must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes of great importance in criminal cases as it furnishes links in the chain of facts which go to establish the guilt of the accused and makes inference possible. It is therefore, a principle of universal application that in order to justify inference of guilt in case dependent upon circumstantial evidence the incriminating fact must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the facts must be verified with scrupulous accuracy and the facts established must be consistent only with the accused being the culprit and should not be susceptible of any rational explanation. Inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accu1ed and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. When the evidence against an accused person is of circumstantial nature, all the links in the chain must be conclusively established by cogent and un-impeach able evidence. In dealing with circumstantial evidence rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In cases where the evidence is of circumstantial nature the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to have any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The circumstances may lead to particular inferences and the relationship of true facts may be more apparent than real. The value of circumstantial evidence has to be assessed on consideration that it must be such as not to admit of more than one solution, and that it must be inconsistent with every proposition or explanation that is not true. If these conditions are fulfilled, circumstantial evidence may approximate to truth and be preferred to direct evidence. Whenever circumstantial evidence is relied on to prove a fact, it must be proved and not by themselves presumed. No single item of evidence can be singled out and given prominence nor accused's theory of the case be withdrawn from consideration. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence should point inevitably to the conclusion that it was the accused and the accused only who were the perpetrators of the offence and such evidence should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. I In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstantial guidance must conclusively establish and must form such a complete chain that it should only be consistent with the guilt of the accused in order to convict him.