Circumstantial Evidence

Conclusion of guilt must be reached by collective application of various species of circumstantial evidence, with one end of the chain touching deceased individual and the other touching the neck of accused individuals

If any link in such chain is absent, the entire chain is disrupted and no conviction can be recorded in such a situation.

Accused was alleged to have confessed to his guilt of murder in an interview recorded by a journalist during his custody with police

Interview of accused was aired by a television channel during pendency of his trial

Trial Court convicted the accused for Qatl-i-amd and sentenced him to death which was confirmed by High Court

Validity

Person in authority or a police officer in whose custody accused was held in custody for the purposes of investigation under Chapter XIV, Cr.P.C was not authorized nor empowered to delegate, directly or indirectly, the power and authority to investigate to a private person let alone a journalist

Power and authority of a Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. could also not be usurped and made redundant, directly or indirectly, by giving access to private persons to record confessions

Access and permission could not be given to a private person, such as a person engaged in the profession of journalism, to record statement of accused in the nature of a confession while he was in custody

Any such statement was inadmissible under the mandate of Article 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

There was no direct and circumstantial evidence brought on record which was reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring enough to convict accused for the charge framed against him

Supreme Court acquitted accused by extending benefit of doubt to him as of right

Appeal was allowed.

Record showed that the testimonies of three witnesses, while not eye-witnesses, were significant as they confirmed that on July 25, 2021, the deceased went missing

Said witnesses learnt about the discovery of a dead body in the hospital mortuary through the police and subsequently identified the deceased

Evidence regarding the disappearance of minor and the subsequent discovery of his body, as revealed by the star witnesses, had been found to be reliable and trustworthy, with their natural presence at the scene further corroborating their accounts

Additionally, the statement of Medical Officer, the Police Surgeon, along with the post-mortem report of deceased and the Medico-Legal Certificates of the accusedand co-accused provided critical insights

Police Surgeon opined that the deceased had been subjected to forcible carnal intercourse and subsequently murdered with a blunt weapon

Furthermore, Medical Officer confirmed that accused could perform sexual intercourse and was medically potent

Testimonies of the remaining witnesses and the DNA result and its conclusion, showed that seminal material was found on anal swab of deceased, stained sections taken from shalwar qameez of deceased, and human blood was identified on stained sections taken from shalwar of appellant

DNA profile obtained from sperm fractions of items Nos. 1, 4.1, 4.5, 4.10, epithelial of item Nos. 1 and 4.5 matched the DNA of appellant

Probability of finding an unrelated individual at random from the population as being the source of DNA obtained from sperm fraction of item Nos. 1, 4.1, 4.5, 4.10, epithelial fractions of item Nos. 1 and 4.5 was approximately one in 64 sextillion in caucasians

Evidence presented collectively supported the prosecution's case, establishing a coherent chain of circumstantial evidence that remained intact

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances, however, the revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence was allowed by enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to capital punishment of death.

In the absence of direct evidence, a conviction can be secured if the chain of circumstantial evidence remains unbroken, directly linking the commission of the offence to the accused.

All the pieces of circumstantial evidence should be so linked that it should give the picture of a complete chain, one corner of which should touch the neck of the deceased and other corner the neck of the accused

Absence of a single link would destroy the entire chain.

In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be completed and unbroken, and from the dead body of a victim the unbroken chain of events should link that chain to the accused

Any missing link entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.

In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance by way of reliable and clinching evidence

Circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused could be reached.

In cases of circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to link each circumstance to the other in a manner that it must form a complete, continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances, firmly connecting the accused with the alleged offence

If any link is missing then obviously benefit is to be given to the accused.

Circumstantial evidence in an unseen occurrence should be like a well-knit chain and each circumstance is to be connected with each other to make one complete chain

If even one link of the chain is missing that would entitle the accused to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

In cases where the crime or offence is unseen, un-witnessed or based on hearsay evidence, the prosecution must rely on strong circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.

To convict an accused on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly established and all the circumstances must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, excluding any reasonable possibility of innocence.

Conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence in absence of direct evidence for the reason that a man could tell a lie but circumstances do not.

In case of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused

If any link in the chain is missing then its benefit must go to the accused.

Conviction can be recorded even in case carrying capital punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence if it excludes all hypothesis of innocence of accused

However, circumstantial evidence should be accepted with great caution and has to be scrutinized minutely for reaching the conclusion that no plausible conclusion can be drawn except guilt of the accused.

Hostility, in legal terms, refers to a deliberate intent to deviate from the truth or act against interests of the party calling the witness, whereas 'retraction' refers to the act of withdrawing or taking back a statement, testimony, or accusation often due to its inaccuracy, falsity, or unreliability

Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis other than the guilt of accused

In the present case in absence of direct or corroborative evidence, reliance on circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Uncertainty of complainant regarding identity of perpetrator introduced a reasonable doubt, which was sufficient to entitle accused to benefit of doubt

Retraction of a statement did not automatically equate to hostility and such crucial point was not sufficiently addressed by the lower fora

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Absence of eye-witness's testimony does not diminish the strength of circumstantial evidence when it is compelling and interlinked.

In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is to establish a continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances that lead to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt

Each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be connected

If any link is found to be weak or broken, the entire chain loses its probative value, thereby benefiting the accused.

In cases of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touchs the dead body and the other the neck of accused

If any link in the chain is missing then its benefit will go to the accused.

Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature, where different pieces of evidence must make a chain of events, where one end of it touches the dead body and the other end the neck of accused

If such link is found missing, the whole chain breaks down and no conviction can be recorded on such circumstantial evidence.

Said witness lodged the report with the police station on the basis of information received by him on a phone call, regarding murder of deceased

According to said witness, the deceased had a Facebook ID with the name of "MP", who on the fateful day had uploaded and posted a live video on his account, which went on the internet, showing the deceased with one unknown person, having liquor and a knife could also be seen in the said video clip

Said witness stated that he had recorded the said video clip in USB and handed over the same to the police, besides a box of mobile phone of deceased

Autopsy of the deceased was not conducted on his request

Said witness further stated that the deceased had left his wife and children and had come to place "H" alone

Said witness raised finger towards appellant and stated that he was the person, whom he had seen in the said video

During cross-examination, said witness admitted that he did not state that he could identify the person visible in the said video

Landlord of the house, where the murder was committed also saw nothing

Prosecution had failed to establish the source of recording the said video and its safe custody

Moreso, since the prosecution had failed to send the said video for forensic analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory in order to rule out the said video being doctored or an outcome of Artificial Intelligence etc., thus placing reliance on such piece of evidence would not be safe, particularly in a case, where punishment of a capital sentence was involved

Merely seeing the appellant in the company of the deceased, would itself not be sufficient as proof of the guilt

Moreover, there was also no evidence that on which date the said video clip was made and put on the website

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Circumstantial evidence is always not of the required standard and quality, rather it is dangerous to explicitly place reliance upon such evidence

Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature, where different pieces of evidence must make a chain of events, where one end of it touches the dead body and the other end the neck of accused

If such link is found missing, the whole chain will break down and no conviction can be recorded on such circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature, where different pieces of evidence must make a chain of events, where one end of it touches the dead body and the other end the neck of accused

If such link is found missing, the whole chain breaks down and no conviction can be recorded on such circumstantial evidence.

Bloodstained last worn garments of the deceased and blood secured from the spot from the place of the deceased were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and in that regard Serologist report revealed that it was human blood and of the same group

All these strong circumstantial pieces of evidence fully corroborated the ocular account of the eye-witnesses, but at the same time drew a clear line of distinction between the roles of the two appellants

Appellant "R"was shown at point No.4 which was on right side of the deceased

Bullet marks were also visible on right side of the motorcar in the photographs

Crime empty recovered from the place of appellant "R" matched with the SMG rifle, an official weapon allotted to him for his duty

Blood and urine of the appellant "R" was also obtained by the Investigating Officer and sent to laboratory for analysis of intoxication

Report in that regard was in positive, meaning thereby that at the time of occurrence appellant "R" was intoxicated

Report with regard to urine and blood of appellant "RU" for the purpose of intoxication was in negative

Thus, appellant "R"was the actual perpetrator

No bullet mark was found on the motorcar of the deceased from back side where presence of appellant "RU" was shown in the site plan at the time of occurrence

Similarly, the deceased had also not received any injury from back side

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved murder of the deceased by appellant "R" through cogent and confidence inspiring direct evidence corroborated by strong circumstantial evidence and supported by medical evidence

Appeal against conviction filed by appellant "R" was dismissed accordingly.

Conviction can be recorded even in a case carrying death sentence on the basis of circumstantial evidence if it excludes all hypothesis of innocence of accused

Prosecution is duty bound to prove every circumstance independently so connected with other circumstances which constituted an unbroken chain that led to no other inference but to the guilt of accused.

In case of circumstantial evidence much is needed from the prosecution to collect and the Investigating Agency is under the obligation to create a well-built chain with no link missing, so that its one end would touch the dead body of the deceased and the other the neck of the accused.

Circumstantial evidence, in the form of DNA matching with some hair in the clenched palm of one of the deceased and on swabs taken from shoe, was mind-boggling evidence and raised many question that how such evidence was collected and procured by the police

First eye brow raiser was the situation in which dead bodies were lying on the place of occurrence

An impression was created that deceased were targeted when they were on motorcycle and after sustaining injuries they fell down on the ground, because snaps of place of murder as well as statements of witnesses showed that motorcycle was lying over the dead body of one of thedeceased, but surprisingly no blood spots or splashing on the motorcycle were found, which fact was conceded by Investigating Officer

Furthermore, Medical Officer had also not observed any injury on the body of deceased due to fall from motorcycle

Medical Officer had also observed no blackening or burning around the injuries of any of the deceased which showed that deceased were hit from quite a distance

When the accused was not within the reach of deceased, some hair in the clenched palm of deceased had no meaning

Similarly, when nobody had seen the accused committing murder, showing that accused ran in haste while leaving his left shoe at the place of occurrence was a story that might not find a buyer

Official witness/Constable, on call, reached the place of occurrence and photographed the dead bodies, but stated that none of the pictures showed the recovery of human hair from the fist of deceased

Investigating Officer admitted that there was no reference of capturing hair by dead body of deceased in his injury statement prepared by him

Said witness also stated that no photograph of fist of deceased was captured, wherein, he was carrying hair

Said witness had not found in said snaps any shoe near or around the dead bodies of deceased persons

Thus, evidence was created to book the accused/appellant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

It is imperative for the prosecution to provide all links in chain as unbroken, where one end of the same touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused.

Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, dishonestly receiving stolen property

Appreciation of evidence

Circumstantial evidence

Scope

Accused were charged for committing murder of step daughter and granddaughter of complainant and in addition to that stealing some household articles

Prosecution produced two witnesses of wajtakar, who claimed their arrival at the place of occurrence at about 7:00 a.m. and they had seen two persons coming out of said house on a motorcycle along with some household articles which were tied in a cloth in the form of a bale along with, television L.C.D.

Both the witnesses also claimed that they had a dialogue with said two persons and asked from them about "MAW" to which they responded that neither they knew "MAW" nor "MAW" had come to that house and both the said persons thereafter went away

Presence of these two witnesses was not proved at the relevant date and time due to the reason that they had not stated the reason of their meeting with "MAW" and also did not tell the link of "MAW" with the house of occurrence

Further they did not explain features of two persons whom they met nor stated that in their presence both the accused had also locked the house and then went away (because according to prosecution, house was locked from inside)

Further their story of moving from place "MT" to place "JT" on foot and reaching there within half an hour was also not believable because both the places were at quite a distance

Fact of their relation with "MAW" was also a missing link due to non-appearance of "MAW" as witness

Said witnesses conceded that they could not produce any proof regarding their visit to see "MAW" on the day of occurrence

Both the said witnesses during their cross-examination conceded the fact that they never pointed out the house of occurrence or the house of "MAW" to the Investigating Officer

Said witnesses had not mentioned any weapon (danda) etc. carried by accused/persons of the case while leaving the house of occurrence because prosecution did not claim availability of crime weapon at the place of occurrence on first inspection

Statements of said witnesses were also not worthy because they did not see the accused/appellants in a situation when they were allegedly committing the murders

Claim of these witnesses of their appearance before the police on the same night i.e., 22.04.2014 after registration of FIR also did not appeal to reason because no supplementary statement of the complainant was available of said date and draftsman conceded during cross-examination that on site plan, the Investigating Officer had written in red notes that accused were not known till 28.04.2014

Further when these two witnesses appeared during identification parade, they might have given some statements but identification parade with complete proceedings was not produced in evidence, therefore, it did not help the prosecution to use such identification parade as explanatory evidence

Investigating Officer further conceded during cross-examination that neither he obtained CDR of these witnesses nor collected any ticket etc. of their bus

Thus, presence of said witnesses could not be established as claimed by them

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Circumstantial evidence must be so cogent and cohesive that it forms a complete and unbroken chain, leading exclusively and irresistibly to the guilt of the accused.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient when it enables the Court to make reasonable inferences about the ultimate facts in issue; it must be more than mere conjecture, speculation, or guess.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient when it enables the Court to make reasonable inferences about the ultimate facts in issue; it must be more than mere conjecture, speculation, or guess.

Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature, where different pieces of evidence must make a chain of events, where one end of it touches the dead body and the other, the neck of the accused

If such link is found missing, the whole chain breaks down and no conviction can be recorded on such circumstantial evidence.

Accused was charged that he made firing upon the complainant party, due to which nephew of the complainant was hit and died whereas complainant remained unscathed

No doubt, recovery of blood from the spot, last worn, bloodstained garments of the deceased positive Serologist report in respect thereof coupled with autopsy report of the deceased, proved the unnatural death of the deceased with a firearm

However, such pieces of circumstantial evidence never tell the name(s) of the culprit(s)

Such pieces of corroborative evidence are always taken in aid of the direct evidence and not in isolation

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution did support their case to a large extent, which included the pointation of the place of occurrence by the accused after his arrest, recovery of blood stained earth and crime empties of 30-bore pistol from the spot as well as blood stained garments of the deceased coupled with its positive Forensic Science Laboratory Reports

Thus, in view of such corroboratory evidence too, the accused had rightly been found guilty of the commission of offence by the trial Court

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record showed that during the spot inspection, the Investigating Officer collected 05 crime empties of 30 bore and bloodstained earth from the spot, subsequently sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis

Forensic Science Laboratory Reports indicated that the crime empties were discharged from different 30 bore weapons, and the bloodstained earth was found as that of a human, belonging to the same blood group

Circumstantial evidence strongly supported the prosecution's case, although it alone was not sufficient to sustain a conviction for two primary reasons; firstly, the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence was considered in favour of the prosecution when the ocular account was reliable and inspired confidence, which was not the case in the present case

Lack of confidence in the ocular account diminished the strength of the circumstantial evidence

Secondly, while the circumstantial evidence established a connection to the crime, it failed to explicitly identify the accused charged as the actual perpetrator

Consequently, the circumstantial evidence in the present case did not contribute significantly to the proof of the charge against the accused

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and other the neck of the accused

If link in the chain is missing the accused being favourite child of law must be extended it benefit.

In cases of circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to link each circumstance to the other in a manner that it must form a complete, continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances, firmly connecting the accused with the alleged offence

If any link is missing then obviously benefit is to be given to the accused.

In circumstantial evidence, prosecution has to prove two of its basic ingredients which are proximity of time and proximity of distance

Proximity of time to prove the evidence of last seen rests on the principle of "de recenti" which lays emphasis that time span between the event of last seen and death must be very short

Short duration between the evidence of last seen and the murder incident in fact eliminates the possibility that the deceased parted the company of accused and joined some other person

More is the distance between evidence of last seen and the death of deceased, greater is the possibility about the hypothesis of innocence of the accused

Failure of prosecution to prove the proximity of time and distance is destined to weaken the evidence of last seen.

Conviction can only be awarded on the basis of circumstantial evidence when it impeccably connects the accused with the commission of crime

For awarding conviction, the incriminating circumstances must be so closely inter-woven with each other that from their appraisal no conclusion other than guilt of accused is to be drawn

Any break in the chain of circumstances or legal inadmissibility of its any part renders such evidence unworthy of credence and cannot be used for raising the superstructure of conviction.

In such like cases, every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused

If any link in the chain was missing then its benefit must go to the accused.

There is no bar or hindrance to pass the sentence upon a killer when the chain of guilt is found not to be broken and irresistible conclusion of guilt is surfacing from the evidence, which connects the accused with the commission of the offence without any doubt or suspicion

If the circumstantial evidence brought on the record is of such nature, then the conclusion will be in the shape of conviction and no other conclusion will be drawn by any stretch of imagination in such a case.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is bound to link each circumstance to the other in a manner that it should form a continuous chain of circumstances firmly connecting the accused with the alleged offence.

Circumstantial evidence should form such a continuous chain that it's one end touches the dead body and other the neck of the accused.

Three witnesses went to the deceased house in the evening of 5/6.10.2010 where they had seen the deceased, the accused and the co-accused/deceased with two of his relatives

Said three witnesses corroborated each other in all material respects and were not chance witnesses and as such there was no reason to disbelieve their evidence about that meeting at the house of the deceased

Said witnesses were cross-examined and there evidence was not dented

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, however, his sentence was reduced from death to life imprisonment

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Circumstances of the case should make an unbroken chain of events which on one end leads to the body of the crime and the other to the neck of the culprit.

Circumstantial evidence should be like a well knit chain whose one end should point to accused and the other to the deceased.

In such cases in order to justify the inference of guilt of an accused, the incriminating fact must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.

Medical evidence is only for confirmation of ocular evidence regarding seat of injury and weapon, etcetera but medical evidence itself does not constitute any corroboration qua the identity of the accused to prove culpability

When the case hinges on circumstantial evidence, utmost care is required to reach the just conclusion

Circumstantial evidence is like a chain and every chain should be linked with the other, if any chain misses, then its benefit should be given to the accused.

Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature, where different pieces of evidence must make a chain of events, where one end of it touches the dead body and the other end the neck of accused

If such link is found missing, the whole chain will break down and no conviction can be recorded on such circumstantial evidence.

Where there is no direct evidence against accused and prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt could be justified only where all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of other person

There must be chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused and must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.