Circumstantial evidence can be form the basis of conviction if there is no eye witness and circumstances of chain is complete. I am a teacher and the most senior staff member in my school after the principal. When the principal was on leave for ten months, I was in charge of our school. During my tenure as acting head, scholarships were distributed to the students. The list of eligible students was prepared by the principal in consultation with the district school inspector. No changes were made during my tenure, but later on, an investigation was conducted by the Basic Siksha Adhikari in the district and found that as many as 236 students received scholarships without being eligible.
The entire allegation was levelled against me. An FIR was lodged, and a charge sheet was submitted. Now, the trial is at an advanced stage. The entire prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence regarding the manipulation of data during my tenure. The school inspector signed off on the list of eligible students, and all those who received scholarships were included. What is the possibility of my guilt?
Asked from: West Bengal
In the present case admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the conviction of the appellant solely rests on the circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence refers to evidence that indirectly proves a fact through inference. Unlike direct evidence, which directly proves a fact without the need for inference (such as eyewitness testimony or a confession), circumstantial evidence requires the judge to draw conclusions based on a combination of circumstances and facts presented.
Circumstantial evidence can be highly persuasive if it establishes a chain of events or a pattern that leads to a logical conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, it is subject to scrutiny and must be evaluated carefully by the court. The Indian legal system recognizes circumstantial evidence as valid and admissible, provided it meets certain criteria, including relevance, reliability, and consistency.
In your case, there is no evidence to prove that you had manipulated the data prepared by the principal. The principal was the one who best knew the eligible students for the scholarship. As the incharge of the school, you simply took custody of that list. All the students listed therein received scholarships.
The fact that scholarships were dispersed during your tenure as incharge does not necessarily imply that you entered the names of ineligible students. There must be concrete evidence to establish that you manipulated the list during your tenure. The circumstantial evidence must lead to only one conclusion that you have entered the name of ineligible students in that record. Failure to prove this fact the chain of circumstances remains incomplete.
The law concerning sentencing based solely on circumstantial evidence is well-established. In S. K. Yusuf vs State Of West Bengal AIR 2011 SC 2283 the hon’ble supreme court has held that
The circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt must be thoroughly established. These established facts should only align with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt and cannot be explained by any other scenario. The circumstances should be conclusive and definitive. A complete chain of evidence must be presented, leaving no reasonable doubt about the accused’s innocence, and indicating that it is highly probable that the accused committed the act.
The prosecution has the responsibility to establish the chain of circumstances. One crucial circumstance is the manipulation of data, which must be proven by the prosecution. Without the prosecution proving this fact, even through the circumstantial evidence, the court cannot convict you.
Additionally, there is no evidence to support the claim that students not mentioned in the alleged list received scholarships. It proves that you have no role in commission of the offence. In Wakkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 306) the supreme court has reiterated that
The circumstances supporting the inference of an accused’s guilt should be unequivocal and align solely with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt. They should be incapable of being explained by any other scenario except the guilt of the accused. When all the circumstances, considered together, inevitably lead to the conclusion that the accused alone is responsible for the crime, the inference becomes irresistible.
If there is no evidence of manipulation with the list, the chain of circumstances does not lead to your guilt. The absence of your involvement in the commission of the crime breaks the chain of circumstances, resulting in your acquittal. Therefore, there is no chance of your guilt because suspicion cannot form the ground of conviction. For more legal help please visit Kanoon India.
