EVIDENCE LAW PROJECT

THIS PROJECT IS THE FULFILMENT OF THE PROJECT SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE LAW OF

Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

ISHAN KAUL Dr. MANOJ SHARMA

ROLL NO. 19144

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have put in a lot of effort in the completion of this project. However, it would not have been possible
without the kind support and help of many individuals and organizations.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Dr. MANOJ SHARMA for his guidance and constant supervision as well as for
providing information regarding the project and also for her support in completing the project.

I would also like to thank the administration for the provision of best facilities without which the
completion of this project .

Lastly I would like to thank the almighty whose blessings helped us to complete this project.

THANK YOU

2
 SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE

Dr. MANOJ SHARMA Date:-

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law

Patiala(Punjab)

This is to certify that the dissertation titled: Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana, submitted to Rajiv Gandhi
National University of Law, Patiala in partial fulfilment of the requirement of the B.A. LLB. (Hons.)
course is an original and bona fide research work carried out by Mr. ISHAN KAUL under my
supervision and guidance. No part of this project has been submitted to any University for the award of
any Degree or Diploma, whatsoever.

Dr. MANOJ SHARMA

3
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. CIRCUMSTAINTIAL EVIDENCE

3. CIRCUMSTAINTIAL EVIDENCE: SOUL BASIS OF CONVICTION

3.1. Nalini's case

3.2. Hanumant v. State of M.P.

3.3. State of U.P. v. Satish

3.4. Sharod Birdhichar Maharashtra

3.5. Priyadarshini Mattoo’s Case

4. Under Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana, (2023) 2 SCC 345

5. CASE ANALYSIS OF Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana

4
 INTRODUCTION

Circumstantial evidence refers to a collection of unrelated facts that, when taken together, can be used to
draw conclusions about an unknown matter. It can be presented by a party in a criminal or civil case and
may indirectly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact or event that the party is attempting to prove.

For instance, a person's behavior around the time of a supposed offense can be considered as circumstantial
evidence. For example, if someone is accused of stealing money and is subsequently observed indulging in a
shopping spree, buying expensive items, this shopping spree could be construed as circumstantial evidence
of the accused's guilt. Similarly, if a witness arrives at the scene of a crime seconds after hearing a gunshot
and sees someone standing over a corpse holding a smoking gun, this evidence is circumstantial as the
individual may have simply picked up the weapon after the actual killer dropped it. The belief that an
individual cannot be found guilty based solely on circumstantial evidence is inaccurate. In fact, many
criminal convictions rely on circumstantial evidence that effectively links the accused to the crime.

CIRCUMSTAINTIAL EVIDENCE

Under Indian Evidence Law, circumstantial evidence refers to evidence that does not directly prove a fact
but allows for an inference to be made regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact.

The admissibility and weight of circumstantial evidence are determined by Section 106 and Section 114 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, places the burden of proving facts that are especially within
the knowledge of a party upon that party. In cases where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence,
Section 106 shifts the burden of proving the innocence of the accused onto the accused.

Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allows the court to presume the existence of a fact based on
certain circumstances. The court may draw such presumptions if it considers them to be reasonable, and they
must not be contrary to any other evidence that has been presented before the court.

Indirect evidence, commonly known as circumstantial evidence, often involves a theory that is supported by
a significant amount of corroborating evidence. It is essential to distinguish between direct and
circumstantial evidence because, with the exception of individuals who are immature, incompetent, or
reckless, most criminals take care not to create direct evidence and avoid demonstrating criminal intent. As a

5
result, the prosecution often relies on circumstantial evidence to establish mens rea levels such as
"purposely" or "knowingly." Similarly, in tort law, to claim punitive damages, a high degree of mens rea
must be proven using circumstantial evidence.

CIRCUMSTAINTIAL EVIDENCE: SOUL BASIS OF CONVICTION

In the Nalini's case. As per Wadhwa, J.

“The well known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every
incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and the
circumstances 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.”1

The following are some cases where circumstantial evidence was relied upon:

1. In the case of Hanumant v. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 343), the Supreme Court held that
circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence and can be relied upon if it is established
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.2
2. In the case of State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114, the Supreme Court held that if the
circumstantial evidence is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and does not admit any other
reasonable inference, it can be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused.3
3. In the case of Sharod Birdhichar Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Supreme Court laid down
certain guidelines that the court must follow when relying on circumstantial evidence. The guidelines
include the need for complete chain of evidence, the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis,
and the existence of a strong and cogent connection between the circumstances and the guilt of the
accused.

“The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established:

(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.

1
State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253
2
AIR 1952 SC 343
3
2005) 3 SCC 114
6
 (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable to any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty,

(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) There must be a chain of evidence as complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”1

In the Priyadarshini Mattoo’s Case

“That I know the defendant is guilty, my hands are tied. As a judge, I can only go by
the evidence provided by the investigative agencies. These were the words of Additional
Sessions Judge G P Thareja, who acquitted Santosh Kumar Singh, Delhi University law
student who committed rape and murder of Priyadharshani Matto. But However the
Delhi High court said that the overall analysis of the circumstances proved beyond doubt
and the evidence is unimpeachable that Singh has committed rape and murder.” "We are
of the view to convict him (Singh) under section 302 (murder) and 376 (rape) of the
Indian Penal Code," the Bench said. The Court observed that the trial court verdict was
"perverse" and shocked the judicial conscience. The court said the evidence was
incompatible with Singh's plea of innocence and "we held him guilty of the offence he
committed.”2

This discussion centers on whether circumstantial evidence alone is enough to obtain a conviction in a
criminal case, and the answer is yes. Circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role in many criminal cases and
is often relied upon heavily. Several landmark cases have resulted in convictions based solely on
circumstantial evidence. In these cases, the prosecution utilized circumstantial evidence to establish their
case and prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Many people mistakenly believe that circumstantial evidence is less valuable than direct evidence, but this is
not entirely true. Although direct evidence is usually more convincing, circumstantial evidence can be
crucial in securing convictions in criminal cases and determining liability in civil cases. In fact, indirect
evidence is frequently used in civil charges. Circumstantial evidence is advantageous because it is harder to
1
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
2
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State, (2010) 9 SCC 747
7
falsify or suppress than direct evidence. If the prosecution's case relies primarily on circumstantial evidence,
the judge may instruct the jury differently when summing up the evidence relating to an element of the
offense that is based entirely or substantially on circumstantial evidence.

Overall, circumstantial evidence is admissible and can be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused,
provided that the circumstantial evidence is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and does not admit
any other reasonable inference.

Under Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana, (2023) 2 SCC 345

This is a legal case summary. The prosecution alleged that the appellant-accused Ram Pratap visited the
deceased Om Prakash, and later returned with his dead body. The brother of the deceased reported the matter
to the police, expressing suspicion against the accused. The trial court relied on the evidence of the brother
and other witnesses, convicted the accused, and acquitted the other accused. The high court confirmed the
conviction, relying on the evidence of the brother. The defense argued that the evidence was circumstantial
and not sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court found that the evidence was
not strong enough to convict the accused and acquitted him of the charges.

CASE ANALYSIS OF Ram Pratap v. State of Haryana

The text is a summary of a court ruling. The court states that suspicion alone cannot prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that each and every circumstance of circumstantial
evidence must be established beyond reasonable doubt, forming a complete chain of evidence
that excludes every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. In this case, evidence from a
witness was not mentioned in the oral report, there was a delay in lodging the report, and the
witness who saw the accused with the deceased turned hostile. The court found that the High
Court and trial court were not justified in convicting the appellant, and the appellant is
acquitted of the charges.