Circumstantial/Indirect Evidence Under BSA

Circumstantial Evidence / Indirect Evidence

Introduction

The justice system relies heavily on evidence to uncover facts, back legal claims, and deliver fair decisions. In this process, understanding the difference between primary and secondary evidence becomes essential. It’s also important to note that circumstantial evidence is not secondary evidence—it is a form of direct evidence applied indirectly, and it plays a crucial role in proving the facts of a case.

Under Section 2(k) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the term “relevant” is clearly defined. A fact is considered relevant when it has a logical connection with another fact as described in the BSA’s provisions on the relevancy of facts.

Meaning -

Evidence is broadly divided into Direct Evidence and Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence .
Direct Evidence are those which conclusively proves the fact whereas Circumstantial Evidence are chain of circumstances used to prove a fact.

It marks its origin from the Roman system of law where it was used as a significant factor for the investigation of a case.  Its based on the principle that : “Men may tell lies, but circumstances do not.”

The Supreme Court clearly laid down the five golden principles for convictions based on circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), which continue to guide courts even today.
Five Golden Principles (Panchsheel) -

1.    Fully Established Circumstances: All the circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt must be clearly and completely proven.

2.    Consistency with Guilt: The established facts should only make sense if the accused is guilty, they should not support any other explanation.

3.    Conclusive Nature: The circumstances must be conclusive nature and tendency should be enough to point toward guilt.

4.    Exclusion of Other Hypotheses: Every possible alternative explanation must be ruled out except the one proving the accused’s guilt.

5.    Complete Chain of Evidence: The evidence must form a chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt and shows that, in all human probability, the act was committed by the accused.

Illustration:
 If a person is seen near a crime scene holding a weapon shortly after an incident, it creates suspicion even though no one directly saw the crime.

Judgements based in Indirect/Circumstancial Evidence :-

1. Jessica Lal Murder Case (State v. Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma & Ors.)1999
In the Jessica Lal murder case, the trial court initially acquitted Manu Sharma mainly because several key eyewitnesses turned hostile and did not fully support the prosecution. This led to widespread public outrage. On appeal, the Delhi High Court re-evaluated the entire body of evidence and held that the acquittal was perverse, as the trial court had ignored the cumulative effect of the evidence. The High Court relied on consistent portions of witness testimonies establishing Manu Sharma’s presence and conduct at the scene, ballistic and forensic evidence linking the fired cartridges to the weapon and vehicles connected to the accused, and his conduct after the incident, including absconding from India. The Supreme Court later upheld the conviction, affirming that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete and unbroken chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Priyadarshini Mattoo Murder Case 1996
In the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, the trial court acquitted Santosh Kumar Singh on the ground that there was no direct eyewitness evidence, despite strong circumstantial and forensic material. The Delhi High Court overturned the acquittal, observing that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The High Court emphasized the close proximity of the accused to the victim, his access to her residence, the presence of forensic evidence linking him to the crime scene, and the absence of any plausible explanation consistent with innocence. The court held that the evidence was “unimpeachable” and conclusively established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala (2025)
In Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court in 2025 upheld the conviction of the accused for the rape and murder of a minor girl based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution proved that the victim was last seen near the accused’s house, that the accused gave a false alibi and obstructed the police from searching his premises, and that the victim’s body was recovered from a concealed location inside his bathroom. DNA analysis conclusively linked the accused to the victim and the crime scene. The Supreme Court held that these circumstances formed a complete and unbroken chain, leaving no possibility of innocence, and reaffirmed that circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a conviction when it points exclusively to the guilt of the accused.

Landmark Judgements :

1.    Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court leaned towards the latter interpretation and concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances.

2.    Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021): In this case, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, despite the accused offering a false explanation for his wife's death.

3.    Dilip Sariwan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023): the High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld a murder conviction that was based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The case centered on the murder of Durgesh Panika, which the prosecution argued was a conspiracy involving his wife and her lover (Tirath Lal Kashipuri), who then hired others, including Dilip Sariwan, to commit the murder.

In the case S. P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 826)
A landmark case relating to corruption, criminal conspiracy, and circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court of India examined the standard of proof required to convict public servants.

Here the SC mentioned four essentials and they are -
1. Conclusively Established Circumstances:
Every incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be clearly and firmly established through reliable evidence.

2. Complete Chain of Events:
The circumstances, when taken together, must form a continuous and complete chain that leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

3. Exclusion of Innocence Hypothesis:
The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and must be inconsistent with any other reasonable explanation.

4. Caution Against Suspicion:
Courts must be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing suspicion, however strong, to substitute legal proof. There is a significant difference between "may be true" and "must be true".




Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence

	Direct Evidence	Circumstantial Evidence
Definition	Directly proves a key fact without requiring any inference or assumption (e.g., an eyewitness to the crime).	Indirectly suggests a fact, requiring the judge or jury to draw a reasonable inference or logical deduction to connect it to the crime (e.g., fingerprints at the scene, DNA evidence, motive, opportunity).
Weight in Court	Often seen as powerful, but can be subject to human error or bias (e.g., mistaken identification, false testimony).	Can be highly reliable, as it often comes from objective sources like forensic science, and multiple pieces of corroborating evidence can build a compelling case.
Sufficiency for Conviction	Sufficient on its own if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.	Sufficient on its own if the collection of facts forms a complete chain of circumstances that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.