2021 LHC 5167
Prosecution’s case is based upon circumstantial evidence. Universally, worth and value of circumstantial evidence always remained an important subject. So, what the circumstantial evidence is, that is to be understood first and then to see the principles governing on this topic.
Definition of Circumstantial Evidence.
.........
It is defined as under: -
i. Evidence of facts or circumstances from which the existence or non existence of fact in issue may be inferred.
ii.The proof of various facts or circumstances which usually attend the main fact in dispute, and therefore tend to prove its existence.
iii. As a series of circumstances leading to the inference or conclusion of guilt, when direct evidence is not available.
iv. It falls short of directly establishing a fact in issue, but which is admissible by reason of its relevance to the fact in issue.
v .A particular set of circumstances may lead to the appropriate inference being drawn.
vi. A theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.
vii. It simply means that when there is no direct evidence of a problem, it's a good idea to look around for any other evidence that might be useful.
Circumstantial evidence,
the principles settled by the apex court. The formulation thereof is as under
...................
i. Circumstantial evidence may sometimes be conclusive, but it must always be narrowly examined.
ii. Circumstances should be ascertained with minute care and caution, before any conclusion or inference adverse to the accused is drawn.
iii.The process of inference and deduction involved in such cases is of a delicate and perplexing character, liable to numerous causes of fallacy.
iv. This danger points need for great caution in accepting proof of the facts and circumstances, before they are held to be established for the purpose of drawing inferences there from.
v. A mere concurrence of circumstances, some or all of which are supported by defective or inadequate evidence, can create a specious appearance, leading to fallacious inferences.
vi.It is necessary that only such circumstances should be accepted as the basis of inferences that are, on careful examination of the evidence, found to be wellestablished.
vii .A high quality of evidence is, therefore, required to prove the facts and circumstances from which the inference of the guilt of the accused person is to be drawn.
viii. There are chances of fabricating evidence in cases that are based solely on circumstantial evidence; therefore, the court, in such cases, should take extra care and caution to examine the evidence with pure judicial approach on strict legal standards to satisfy itself about its proof, probative value and reliability.
ix.When there are apparent indications of possibility of fabricating evidence by the investigating officer in making the case, the court must be watchful against the trap, which may misled to drawing a false inference, and satisfy itself about the fair and genuine collection of such evidence. The failure of the court to observe such care and caution can adversely affect the proper and safe administration of criminal justice.
x. The settled approach to deal with the question as to sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for conviction of the accused is this: If, on the facts and circumstances proved, no hypothesis consistent with the innocence of accused can be suggested, the case is fit for conviction on such conclusion; however, if such facts and circumstances can be reconciled with any reasonable hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused, the case is to be treated one of insufficient evidence, resulting in acquittal of the accused.
xi. Circumstantial evidence, in a murder case, should be like a well-knit chain, one end of which touches the dead body of the deceased and the other the neck of the accused.
xii. No link in chain of the circumstances should be broken and the circumstances should be such as cannot be explained away on any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt of accused.
xiii. Chain of such facts and circumstances has to be completed to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and to make the plea of his being innocent incompatible with the weight of evidence against him. Any link missing from the chain breaks the whole chain and renders the same unreliable and in that event, conviction cannot be safely recorded, especially on a capital charge.
xiv If the circumstantial evidence is found not of the said standard and quality, it will be highly unsafe to rely upon the same for conviction; rather, not to rely upon such evidence will a better and a safer course.
Differentiating the direct and circumstantial evidence according to David Ellison
: - “Sometimes it is easier to understand the difference with an example. If your brother comes to you and says he saw it snow today, then there is direct evidence that it was snowing. If your brother told you that he woke up and saw snow on the ground, then there is circumstantial evidence that it snowed. He did not see it snow, but it is a reasonable inference that if there is snow on the ground, it must have snowed
. Dr. Sowed Juma Mayanja 5 6 , ” while making comparative analysis of the Common Law and Islamic Law Systems with regard to circumstantial evidence and its admissibility in criminal proceedings, writes that under the Islamic law, circumstantial evidence refers to admissibility of ‘Alqara’in’ that is plural of ‘Alqariinah’, which literally means connection, conjunction, relation, presumption, inference or indication. According to him in the language of the law, the word ‘Alqariinah’ refers to something which surrounds an event and serves as a sign for the existence or non existence of something. Thus, circumstantial evidence and ‘Alqariinah’ are both synonymous and refer to circumstances surrounding an event from which an inference can be drawn for existence or non existence of the issue under investigation. The basis of admissibility of circumstantial evidence under Islamic law is found in both the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW). He also referred the verses of Holy Quran from “Surat Yusuf” as under: -
“They said: ‘Our father, we went racing with one another and left Yusuf by our belongings and a wolf devoured him, but you will never believe us even if we speak the truth’. And they brought his shirt stained with false blood. He said: ‘Nay, but your own selves have made up a tale.”
. Elaborating the above verses in the light of circumstantial evidence Dr. Juma further writes that: -
“These verses are about the story of Prophet Yusuf and his brothers who threw him into a well because of being the most beloved son to their father. After throwing him into the well, they came back in the evening weeping. They told their father that they had left Yusuf guarding their belongings and went racing with one another. As they were away, a wolf came and devoured Yusuf. They brought his shirt stained with false blood to convince their father that the blood was a result of the wolf devouring Yusuf. Their father based on circumstantial evidence to disprove their tale as he looked at Yusuf’s un-torn shirt and said “When did the wolf become so intelligent so as to remove Yusuf’s shirt un-torn before devouring him?” that is why he said, “Nay but your own selves have made up a tale”.
Quoting further Surat Yusuf, he wrote that: -
“Yusuf and the woman raced towards the door one behind the other and she tore his shirt from behind. In the process they met her husband at the door. On seeing him she cried out, ‘what punishment does one deserve who shows evil intentions towards your wife? What else than he should be put in prison or tortured with painful torment’. Yusuf said, “It was she that seduced me”. At this moment, a witness of her own folk testified saying, “if his shirt is torn from the front, then her tale is true and he is a liar, but if his shirt is torn from the back then she has told a lie and he is speaking the truth”. When her husband saw Yusuf’s shirt torn at the back, he said: “Surely it is a plot of you woman, certainly mighty is your plot”.
The above verses are about the story of ‘Prophet Yusuf’ and his master’s wife. The woman after closing all the doors of the house, tried to seduce Yusuf into evil. Prophet Yusuf instead refused and rushed to open the door. The woman decided to race with him and pulled him from behind. In the process she tore his shirt from behind. As they reached the door, they found Yusuf’s master. The woman tried to accuse Yusuf of trying to do evil to her, but Yusuf defended himself by counter accusing her that she was the one who was trying to seduce him. As neither of the two had evidence to support his/her claim, a person from among her own folk adduced circumstantial evidence to prove the fact in issue. He said that look at his shirt, if it be that it is torn from the front, then that would be enough evidence for her that Yusuf was trying to do evil to her and as she was trying to defend herself she tore his shirt from the front. But if it be that his shirt is torn from the back, then that would be enough proof for Yusuf that as he was trying to escape from evil, she tried to pull him from behind and as a result his shirt got torn from the back. The master relied on circumstantial evidence of the shirt being torn from the back, to prove that the woman was telling lies, and that is why he said: ‘Surely it is a plot of you women, certainly mighty is your plot’.
Criminal appeal No. 445 of 2013
Allah Rakkha VS. The State & another
2021 LHC 5167
0 Comments