What the Supreme Court said about Circumstantial Evidence to establish guilt [Read judgment]

The Supreme Court today held that in cases where prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, it must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap..A Bench of Justices AK Sikri and RK Agrawal held that guilt of an accused in a criminal case cannot be fixed based merely on incriminatory circumstance unless it is backed by “reliable and clinching evidence”..The Court was deciding a case of two unnatural deaths wherein the Appellant-accused were held guilty by the Salem Sessions court as well as the Madras High Court for murder. The grounds for conviction by the courts below were ‘last seen theory’, confessions made before Police which led to discovery of facts, and a chain of circumstances..While discussing the ‘last seen theory’ as a crucial aspect in the case, the Supreme Court observed that the legal position in Indian criminal jurisprudence presumes that the person last seen with the deceased would have killed him. However, the Court also went on to say that this theory and evidence of being last seen together, although an important event, cannot do away with the standard of proof which requires guilt of the accused to be established beyond all reasonable doubt..The Court also addressed the validity and scope of a confession made before the Police and reiterated the provision under Section 27 of the Evidence Act stating that,.“Section 27 of the Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact. The relevance is limited as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.”.While rendering the confessional statements in this case, the Court also pointed out that even if a confession leads to discovery of a fact, such a discovery will fail to have any substantial effect on the case if no link can be drawn between the crime and the fact discovered..Establishing the risk involved in basing a case completely on circumstantial evidence, the Court stressed on the importance of the chain of events to be watertight to avoid even a slight possibility of a hypothesis or a “what if”. The Court went on to say,.“The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof..The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt”..Delving into the dangers of basing a case entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court said that there is a risk of conjecture replacing legal proof and it is the duty of the courts to prevent this from happening. Where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap, the Court held..“There is a long mental distance between “may be true” and “must be true” and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence”.Applying these to the facts of the case, the Court proceeded to set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquitted the accused..Read the judgement below: