Supreme Court Clarifies Use of Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Cases

Supreme Court's Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court stated on Thursday that circumstantial evidence can only be utilized to convict an accused in a criminal case if it exclusively points towards their guilt.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra overturned the conviction and life sentence of an individual involved in a 2004 murder case, reiterating the legal principle that the theory of last seen together is insufficient for upholding convictions that rely solely on circumstantial evidence.

Justice Mishra, while drafting the judgment, emphasized, “In criminal jurisprudence, it is a well-established principle that an accused can only be convicted based on circumstantial evidence if it is entirely inconsistent with their innocence and solely indicates their guilt.”

The ruling further clarified that in cases lacking direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence used against the accused must lead exclusively to the conclusion of the crime and eliminate every other possibility of their innocence.

After identifying significant deficiencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution, the bench acquitted the appellant Manoj alias Munna, granting him the benefit of the doubt. This case dates back to June 2004.

The prosecution alleged that Manoj, along with five co-accused, murdered a tractor driver named Yuvraj Singh Patle over charges of vehicle theft and sale. The Chhattisgarh High Court had upheld his conviction in 2011.