Background
The case
Bodh Raj & Ors v. State of Jammu & Kashmir deals with the
aspects of the circumstantial evidence. In the words of Stephen Leacock,
circumstantial evidence is defined as my evidence for this assertion is
indirect; it's what we call as the circumstantial evidence the same the people
hang for. Circumstantial evidence can be best defined as when all the unrelated
facts are considered together then certain inference can be drawn from such
facts which are known as the circumstantial evidence.
And the circumstantial evidence is not used as original evidence but it would be
helpful in guiding further investigation. Circumstantial evidence could be
helpful in both criminal and civil cases, in criminal cases it would be helpful
in evaluating whether the accused is guilty or innocent and in the case of civil
cases it would be helpful in establishing or denying the liability of the
parties.
Outline
In the present case the issue was whether the discovery of the weapons that are
used in the assault was found by the information provided the accused, which is
in the custody, can be treated as evidence to prove that he is guilty of the
offence. And in this case the court has decided that the statement given by the
accused which are helpful in finding more evidences and become instrumental in
proving the guilt of the accused can be admitted.
According to section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it has been stated
that this section has been enacted as a proviso for sections 25 and 26 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as these sections state that the statement made by the
accused in the police custody can be considered as a confession and cannot be
admitted as evidence. So, the objective of section 27 of the IEA, 1872 was to
admit the evidence given by the accused in the police custody if that evidence
leads to the discovery of the new facts in the case and that evidence can be
admissible in the court.
Critical Review Of The Case
In this case, the appellant Bodh raj was acquitted at the trial court but he was
convicted at the high court. And the other accused named Rohit Kumar and Kewal
Krishan were acquitted by the trial court and later the decision of the trial
court was upheld by the high court. And the other accused named Kishore Kumar
was primarily acquitted by the trial court and later he died during the pendency
of the appeal. And the facts of the case were that the deceased Swaran Singh is
running a finance company and in this company two of the accused named Ashok
Kumar and Ravinder Kumar have taken the loan and later on, the accused suggested
the deceased enter into a financial arrangement.
To deposit the money in the bank and all the three parties went to look at a
site for the purpose of the flour mill later on some people came to the site and
attacked the deceased and the other two accused remained as silent spectators
and in this course Swaran Singh was dead and Ashok Kumar with help of his wife
cheque book and issued a cheque in the bank account and in the instance of the
other accused Ravinder Kumar the license of his revolver has been seized and the
revolver of the deceased has also been recovered in the instance of Ravinder
Kumar and two of them had made a statement to the prosecution witness that they
killed the party because he was demanding money from them.
And from these facts, it has been inferred that since the land was too brought
by both accused, Ravinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar, they both hired the assailants
to kill Swaran Singh. And the accused Rajesh Kumar and Subash Kumar have also
suffered injuries while the deceased was trying to save his life in that attack
by the assailants. And in the process of recovering weapons, the other accused
in this case has been identified by the prosecution witnesses. The accused Bodh
Raj was identified by the prosecution witness.
Stand Of Prosecution
The prosecution has stated that there existed a conspiracy to kill Swaran Singh
by inferring certain facts such as nobody except the accused, Ravinder Kumar and
Ashok Kumar know the place of land and while they were going to the site they
used a car which was not on their name. And however, the advocate general who
appeared before the trial court has stated that there was no direct evidence
presented to state that there was a conspiracy to kill Swaran Singh.
And the learned counsel of the prosecution has also stated that the accused
Ashok Kumar and Ravinder Kumar are very influential persons in the society and
they can manipulate the evidence that is present and the witnesses were afraid
of them and he suggested examining the facts with the test of pragmatic
approach, which means examining the evidence that are present in the practical
ways rather than theoretical way of approach.
Stand Of Defence
The defense counsel has stated that there was no conspiracy existed in killing
of Swaran Singh. And the prosecution witness, Kapur Chand has stated before the
police that the examination of conspiracy was not done. And the investigating
officer in this case has stated that there is no direct evidence of the
conspiracy has existed and there is proof that has been present to show that
accused were linked to this crime.
Scrutiny Of The Case By The Appeal Court
In this case it has not been disclosed by both the trial court and the high
court how the police got to know about the place where the deceased was found
dead. And it is stated by witnesses that the police got to know about the place
through a telephone call, but the FIR is registered on the basis of reliable
sources they got to know about the place. And on the basis of the circumstantial
evidence the four of the accused were acquitted by the trial court and the trial
court has adopted the right approach while examining the circumstantial
evidence.
Examination Of Precedents
Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is stated that in order to
provide the evidence which leads to the discovery of the new facts will be
admissible in the court of law and such information must come from the person
who is in the police custody. And the admissible information is the information
that is derived from the statement of the accused but no the opinion of the
police officer.
In the case of
Pandurang Kalu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, it was held
that the restrictions that were imposed by sections 25 and 26 can be lifted if
the statement given by the accused leads to the discovery of the new facts in
the case. And that information given by the accused in the police custody should
be recorded and proved for the benefit of both prosecution and accused in case
of the non-recording of the information then the original information must be
submitted as evidence and this can defined as the doctrine of confirmation by
successive events.
And this doctrine is based on the principle that any information provided by the
person in police custody is genuine, but that information is derived from the
confessional statement and it leads to the discovery of the facts. The recovery
of an object cannot leads to the discovery of the facts because mere finding an
object cannot leads to know the real facts of the facts as anticipated in
section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In the case of
C. Chenga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held
that in the cases where the judgment is based on the circumstantial evidence and
based on certain circumstances from which the guilt of the accused is derived
should be fully proved and it should be conclusive in nature.
And in the case of
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors,
it was held that if the cases are based upon the circumstantial evidences then
certain tests are to be followed they are:
- The circumstances from which the facts derived and inferences drawn
should be firmly established.
- The circumstances should in such a manner that should point the guilt
towards the accused but not show the innocence.
- While considering all the circumstances it should form a chain of
evidence and should prove that the accused was guilty of the offence.
- And the final test is that the circumstantial evidences should be
consistent with the guilt of the accused and it should be inconsistent with
his innocence.
Examination Of Evidence
In the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, it was
held that while examining the evidences in a case a great care must be taken in
order to interpret the facts and there are two possibilities of evidences they
are one is favor of the accused and that must be considered and the other one
circumstances will be helpful in forming the facts so that it will be of such a
nature that it solely serves to prove the guilt of the accused and no other
hypothesis. Furthermore, the evidence should be conclusive and should not allow
for any further inferences.
Obiter Dictum
In the present case the court has enumerated some important points that have to
be fulfilled if the conviction of the accused is based on the circumstantial
evidence they are as follows:
- The circumstances from which facts are derived must be final, and there
should be no further scope for any other explanations.
- Circumstances from which the guilt is proved should be required to be
rigid in nature.
- The circumstances underpinning the guilt should be rigid in nature.
- The circumstances underpinning the guilt should be rigid in nature.
- The circumstances underpinning the guilt should be rigid in nature.
While inferring the facts from the circumstances, only the relevant things must
be considered; the other entire hypothesis should not be taken into account.
And the circumstances should be in such a manner it shows interconnectedness
between the accused and the criminal offence. And the circumstances should be
such that they demonstrate the accused's connection to the criminal offense.
And the circumstances should be such that they demonstrate the accused's
connection to the criminal offense. And the circumstances should be such that
they demonstrate the accused's connection to the criminal offense. And the
circumstances should be such that they demonstrate the accused's connection to
the criminal offence.
Ratio Decidendi
In this case, the court observed that establishing the facts that the deceased
was last seen with the accused would be difficult, and in cases where there is a
large number of people who may be in between the accused and the deceased, it
may be even more difficult. And in the absence of any further pieces of
evidence, the court shall conclude that the deceased was last seen with the
accused, and in these types of cases, it would be difficult to prove the
conviction of the accused as there would be many other facts that are
inconsistent with the circumstances.
Judgement
The court has held that for admission of a certain piece of evidence the
circumstances can be basis for the conviction of the accused, and proving that
circumstances are in consistent with the facts lies upon the prosecution and he
has to prove that chain is complete and has to show that there is no infirmity
as stated in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.
And there is no requirements of proofs are needed if the link between the
accused and the offence has been established. The last seen doctrine can be
understood as the person with whom the accused was last seen and he will be
responsible for the death of that person.
However, the circumstances leading to the last seen doctrine not always be
concluded that the accused is guilty of the offence. And it is imperative to
look up to other circumstances in which it can be shown that there are other
things had been taken place. There should be proximity of time between the death
of a person and the accused because it clears the ambiguity that if there are
any other persons with the deceased.
And the court held that the extent of the information provided by the
circumstances that can be admissible in the case should depend on the nature of
the facts and the court has observed that the statement provided by the accused
in the police custody regarding the place he has concealed the articles cannot
be regarded as information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
And the appeal filed by the state in respect of whom both the trial court and
the high court have acquitted has been seen as immaterial. And both the courts
have not found any reasons to find them guilty of the crime and hence the appeal
filed by the state has been dismissed.
Conclusion
In these modern times, there has been the advancement of knowledge in obtaining
circumstantial evidence to assist the prosecution and prove the accused is
guilty of the crime. And we know that eye witness of a criminal offence can be
the significant evidence and it is considered in most the cases, but in certain
cases, it can be subjected to scrutiny because of the human errors or any malice
intended on the party. Whereas the case of circumstantial evidence tests the
direct evidence by the usage of linking of the facts and proving the guilt of
the accused. Circumstantial can be best said as evidence that is supported by
corroboration.
Please Drop Your Comments