Evidentiary Value of Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Trials: A Comparative Study under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Evidentiary Value of Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Trials: A Comparative Study under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

By :

SALIL KUMAR.P

ADVOCATE

E. No. K/136/1999

KOZHIKODE-673001

Abstract

Circumstantial evidence has always played a decisive role in murder trials in India. While direct eyewitness testimony is often unavailable, courts have repeatedly held that a conviction can rest solely on circumstantial evidence — but only if the circumstances form a complete, unbroken chain pointing unmistakably to the guilt of the accused. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) retains the foundational principles established under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but codifies them with clearer structure and statutory coherence. This article analyses the evidentiary standards governing circumstantial evidence in murder cases, compares the old and new statutory frameworks, and examines key Supreme Court and Kerala High Court precedents. It emphasizes the cardinal rule: if any link in the chain of circumstances is broken, the benefit must go to the accused, not the prosecution.

I. Introduction

Murder cases often unfold in secrecy, with no eyewitnesses and only indirect traces leading to the perpetrator. Courts therefore rely heavily on circumstantial evidence, which requires careful judicial scrutiny. Indian criminal jurisprudence has long recognised that circumstantial evidence can, in appropriate cases, be more reliable than direct testimony. However, because circumstantial evidence is inherently inferential, it is subject to stricter judicial safeguards.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) — which has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — retains the doctrinal structure of relevancy and admissibility, while reorganising and modernizing certain provisions. The judicially developed principles on circumstantial evidence continue to operate fully under the BSA.

II. Circumstantial Evidence under the BSA 2023: Core Principles

The following judicially established principles are fully recognised under the BSA:

1. Indirect Proof

Circumstantial evidence is indirect; it does not directly prove guilt but allows the court to draw logical inferences from established facts.

2. Fully Established Facts

Every circumstance relied upon must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.

3. Inference of Guilt

The established facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty.

4. Complete Chain of Circumstances

The chain must be continuous, unbroken, and lead to one inevitable conclusion — that the accused and none else committed the offence.

5. Exclusion of Every Hypothesis of Innocence

If any reasonable theory of innocence exists, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt.

6. Sole Basis for Conviction

Conviction can rest solely on circumstantial evidence, but only when all the above principles are satisfied.

These principles, developed under the Evidence Act through precedent, apply identically under the BSA because the concept and legal essence of circumstantial evidence is preserved.

III. Comparison: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 vs. BSA 2023

Issue Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Effect on Circumstantial Evidence

Structure Fragmented, colonial-era drafting Modernized, reorganized Easier interpretation, but substance identical

Definition of Relevant Facts Sections 5–55 Chapter II (Relevancy of Facts) Continuity of principles

Conduct Sec. 8 Sec. 8 BSA Same relevance in forming links of chain

Motive, Preparation Sec. 8 Sec. 8 & 10 BSA Unchanged significance

Confessions Secs. 24–30 Secs. 21–27 BSA No substantive changes affecting circumstantial evidence

Facts forming part of same transaction Sec. 6 Sec. 6 BSA “Res gestae” remains key in creating the chain

Linking facts through digital evidence Not expressly structured Chapter on Electronic Evidence expanded Stronger clarity on digital circumstantial links

Burden of Proof Secs. 101–106 Secs. 103–109 BSA Substance preserved

Conclusion of Comparison

There is no dilution or expansion of the classical principles on circumstantial evidence in the BSA. Instead, the BSA preserves the principles while offering clearer categorization and enhanced provisions on electronic evidence, which has become crucial in modern murder cases.

IV. Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Circumstantial Evidence

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116

This is the constitutionally foundational judgment laying down the five golden principles (“Panchsheel”) of circumstantial evidence:

Each circumstance must be firmly established

Circumstances must be consistent only with guilt

Circumstances must be of a conclusive nature

They must exclude every hypothesis except guilt

There must be a complete chain

These principles continue unchanged under the BSA.

2. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (1952 SCR 1091)

The Court emphasised that inference cannot be drawn on mere suspicion. Facts must point “unerringly” to the accused.

3. Navaneethakrishnan v. State (2018) 16 SCC 161

The Court acquitted the accused because the prosecution relied on speculative links. The case reiterates that “missing links” cannot be bridged by conjectures.

4. Ramanand @ Nandlal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 13 SCC 166

The Supreme Court held that motive, last-seen theory, and recovery of weapon are not enough unless supported by an unbroken chain.

5. Jose alias Pappachan v. State of Kerala (2016) 10 SCC 519

The Court stressed the need for strong proof of each circumstance and acquitted because the chain was incomplete.

6. Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 6 SCC 620

Circumstantial evidence must be tested against constitutional standards of fairness and presumption of innocence.

V. Kerala High Court Decisions on Circumstantial Evidence

1. Beena v. State of Kerala, 2020 (Kerala HC)

The Court reiterated that unless the circumstances form a complete chain, conviction is not sustainable. The accused was acquitted because the scientific evidence did not conclusively connect him to the crime.

2. State of Kerala v. Rajendran, 2019

The High Court held that last-seen evidence must be corroborated with other circumstances; otherwise it is unsafe to convict.

3. Sivadasan v. State of Kerala, 2017

Recovery of the weapon under Section 27 (now Section 23 BSA) does not by itself complete the chain.

4. Moidu v. State of Kerala, 2015

The Court emphasized that motive alone cannot establish guilt in a circumstantial case.

5. Kasi v. State of Kerala, 2021

DNA and fingerprint evidence must satisfy chain-of-custody requirements; otherwise its evidentiary value collapses.

VI. Broken Chain of Circumstances: Benefit Must Go to the Accused

Both the Supreme Court and Kerala High Court have repeatedly held:

 If the chain of circumstances is incomplete or broken at any point, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

This principle flows from:

• The presumption of innocence

• The burden on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

• Article 21 of the Constitution

• BSA Sections 103–109 (burden of proof framework)

Courts made it clear that any missing link cannot be filled by:

Moral conviction of the judge

Suspicion, conjecture, or surmise

Hostile witness inferences

Mere strong motive

Recovery of weapon unsupported by forensic proof

Thus, circumstantial evidence must pass a higher threshold: every link must be proven. A single broken link collapses the entire chain.

VII. Application of BSA 2023 in Modern Murder Trials

Under the BSA, modern circumstantial evidence increasingly includes:

• CCTV footage

• Call detail records

• IP logs and digital forensic trails

• GPS and mobile tower location

• Digital footprints (emails, chats, social media activity)

These fall under the reorganized sections on electronic records, but the standard of proof remains:

“A complete, coherent, and unbroken chain.”

If the digital chain is broken — such as poor chain-of-custody, missing timestamps, unverified metadata — the prosecution case collapses.

VIII. Conclusion

Circumstantial evidence continues to occupy a central role in murder trials in India. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has not altered the substantive standards applied to such evidence; it has merely reorganized the statutory structure and strengthened digital evidence provisions. The judicially evolved principles — especially those in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda — remain constitutional cornerstones.

Ultimately, courts must guard against the risk of wrongful conviction. Therefore, the rule remains unshakeable:

If any link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken, the benefit must go to the accused — never to the prosecution.

This safeguard protects the presumption of innocence and ensures that convictions in circumstantial murder cases rest only on firm, unerring, and complete proof.