According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence is a statement which
the Courts require or permit to be made before witnesses and which relates to
facts liable to prejudice. Evidence includes all documents and electronic
records that are created for review by the court.
Evidence is of two kinds:
direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence may be considered
testimony that goes directly to any particular point in question and proves that
if it is assumed, without any deductive logic or deduction. For example, an
eyewitness to a murder can be considered direct evidence.
A witness admitting a direct recollection of events can be considered as direct
evidence. This may include things such as what the witness recorded with his
senses, what the witness heard.
In any direct evidence, the witness generally tells what he directly
experienced. An example would be when someone saw someone else shooting someone
this can be considered direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence refers to a situation where a witness cannot directly
tell you a fact, a fact that needs to be proven. Instead of direct information,
the witness gives some evidence about certain facts that can help guide the fact
finder to some rational conclusion. This can help prove the claim to be proven.
The definition of circumstantial evidence has been developed through the
interplay between different statutes and different judicial interpretations.
Indirect evidence is also known as circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can be thought of as an unrelated chain of events. The
events that all come together can then lead to the conclusion that a crime has
According to Benthem, witnesses are the 'eyes and ears of justice', but witness
statements are not always credible. The facts are therefore provable not only by
witnesses, but also by circumstances. Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts
that, when considered together, can be used to draw a conclusion about something
unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal
proceeding that allows a conclusion to be drawn that indirectly proves the
existence or non-existence of a fact or even a fact that the party is trying to
The concept of circumstantial evidence arises because in most cases no direct
evidence could be found, so the Court has to rely on circumstantial evidence to
decide the case. The last seen theory is also based on the same lines as in some
criminal cases, where there is no direct or tangible evidence as to how the
crime was committed or who committed the crime, then the last option to decide
the case is this theory based on the circumstances of the case.
this theory, if a person is last seen with the deceased just before his death or
within a reasonable time after his death that no other person could have
intervened between them, it can be assumed that he (the person who was last
seen) is the perpetrator of the crime . And so the burden of proof shifts to him
to deny this fact, and if he is unable to provide a clear and sufficient
explanation of his innocence, then the presumption is even stronger.
Concept of Circumstantial Evidence Under Indian evidence Act
The term circumstantial evidence has been defined by Peter Murphy as "evidence
from which the desired conclusion may be drawn but which requires the tribunal
of fact not only to accept the evidence adduced but also to draw influence from
The term circumstantial evidence was first used in India by Sir James Stephen
when he stated that these facts depend on other facts and exist if other facts
are proved to have existed. This means that the conclusion is drawn according to
a reasonable prudent person based on a previously proven fact.
An example of circumstantial evidence is a person's behavior at the time of the
alleged crime. If someone was accused of stealing money and was then seen at the
mall buying expensive things, the mall can be considered as circumstantial
evidence of the individual's guilt.
Similarly, if a witness arrives at the crime
scene seconds after hearing the gunshot and finds himself standing over the
corpse holding a smoking gun, the evidence is circumstantial. Most criminal
convictions are based at least in part on circumstantial evidence that
sufficiently connects the criminal and crime.
The Basics of Circumstantial Evidence: The circumstance from which guilt is established should be proven
Each of the facts should be based on the hypothesis of the guilt of the
Circumstances should have an irreversible nature and tendency.
That the circumstances should, with ethical certainty, really rule out
except the one to be documented.
The evidence should prove the guilty party beyond reasonable doubt.
The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn ought
to be established. Relevant circumstances "must" or "should" and not "may"
The established facts should therefore correspond to the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused.
Circumstances should be conclusive in their nature and tendency.
Conditions For Conviction Based On Circumstances Evidence:
In the case of Chandmal vs Province of Rajasthan
, the court held that in
situations where there is no direct evidence and the case is based only on
circumstantial evidence, then in these situation, three conditions must be met -
The first is that the conditions on which the proof of the fact depends must be
built up immovably. The second is that the conditions must be precise and the
conditions must point to the guilt of the individual being accused. The last is
when all conditions are met
in general and they should create a total chain and there should not be any kind
of escape in the created chain.
In one other case, Khem Karan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
, the court held that if
all the evidence and circumstances point to the guilt of the offender and there
is no scope any other alternative hypothesis then in such a situation the
accused can only be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence .
When To Decide Based On Circumstantial Evidence:
As decided in the case of Sudam Pandey v. State of Bihar (2001)
, the following
pointers should be kept in mind while proving a case through circumstantial
The circumstances from which the inferences are drawn should be fully
demonstrated to have existed.
- All facts that are proven should support the hypothesis of the accused's
- The chain of circumstances should be well connected and complete to be
- The circumstances should negate any possibility that the accused is
Shift Of The Burden Of Proof And Section 106 Of Evidence
Indian Evidence Act,1872.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which states that when a fact is known,
it is for him to prove his innocence. For example, if the body of B was found in
the house of A. It is for A to prove that even if he knew that the body of the
deceased was found from his house, his participation in the crime is negligible.
The inmates of the house are also obliged to give an explanation. If the
defendant does not provide a viable explanation and does not provide evidence
his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence that proves
the guilt of the accused. If there is no direct evidence against the accused and
after the prosecution presents circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof
shifts to the accused and he must prove his innocence by describing the
circumstance or situation when he was last seen with the deceased.
If the accused does not describe the situation correctly or the situation
explained by the accused is false statement, then the circumstantial evidence
provided by the public prosecutor will reveal that the accused committed the
The abnormal conduct of the accused may land the accused in big trouble if he
fails to prove his innocence. The conduct of the accused plays a vital role in
corroborating or establishing circumstantial evidence. Behavior of the accused
which is unnatural and abnormal such as flight, incapacity to provide an
explanation, the impossibility of revealing the place of the crime, the
provision of a false alibi, the secret cremation of the dead body, which
destroys the presumption of innocence, is a relevant factor in establishing
guilt and building the chain of events. For example - After the murder of B the
main accused C left the state and subsequently disappeared to avoid arrest. C's
behavior is contrary to that of an innocent person. This increases the
presumption of guilt.
In Kashi Ram v/s State of Rajasthan
- 2006 TMI 660 - SC, In this case
accused Kashi ram killed his wife and two daughters and the court awarded him
death sentence. The Supreme Court noted that the very provision of Section 106
of the Evidence Act is ambiguous and categorical in that it stipulates that if a
fact is particularly known to a person, the burden of proof of this fact rests
So if the person was last seen with the deceased, they must provide an
explanation of how and when they broke up. He must give an explanation which
appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so, he must be
considered to have discharged his burden. If he does not give an explanation
based on the facts within his special knowledge, he will not discharge the
burden imposed on him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to give a
reasonable explanation to discharge the burden placed on him ,that in itself
constitutes another link in the chain of circumstances proved against him.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act lays down the rule that if the accused does not
shed light on facts which are particularly known to him and which could not
support any theory or hypothesis, compatible with his innocence, the court may
consider his failure to provide an explanation as another link that closes the
chain. Kashi Ram was unable to provide a valid or satisfactory explanation and
was therefore added as a reference to circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence also understood as circumstantial evidence cannot be
considered worse than direct evidence. If the above conditions are met, he can
only be convicted on the basis circumstantial evidence without direct evidence.
Circumstance requires a certain level of corroboration which can be demonstrated
by the conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. It is up to the
judiciary to critically analyze the evidence. Absent evidence is used in both
civil and criminal cases, but especially in criminal cases.
Last Seen Theory
The "last seen" theory is the last resort of the prosecution when there is no
direct evidence against the accused. The prosecution must prove that the crime
was committed by the accused who was last seen with the deceased. In this
theory, the time gap between the time of death and the person last seen with the
deceased should not be too long, as this weakens the theory.
The prosecution should prove that there is no possibility of a third party
committing the crime and should show that there was a minimum lapse of time
between the death of the deceased and the last time the person saw the deceased.
The gap of time plays a vital role in proving the guilt of the accused in the
theory of "last seen together" because the basis of this theory is based on the
principle of probability, cause and connection.
This theory derives its relevance from Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act
which is called the "Doctrine of Inductive Logic" which states that if any fact
related to occasion, cause or effect leads to the circumstances under which the
thing occurred or provided occasion for this thing to occur, then these facts
will be relevant. And in the last-seen theory, the person who was last present
with the victim would also have a reasonable opportunity to commit the crime.
In Bodhraj V. State of J&K
- 2002 (9) TMI 858 - SC, Court held that last
seen theory comes into play where the lapse of time between when the accused and
the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased found dead is so small
that the possibility of the perpetrator of the crime being a person other than
the accused is impossible.
Although the theory relieves the court of the burden of proving guilt, it is a
weak evidence and must be corroborated by other factors, such as whether there
was a motive with the person last seen with the deceased, or could even exercise
such a type. injuries that caused death.
In the case of Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that unless other links are present to support the theory, it is not safe
to convict on that theory alone. For example, when the deceased was last seen
with an old lady who cannot walk properly on her own, and the deceased died from
multiple stab wounds.
So in this case, it is not reasonable to believe that the old lady committed the
murder, and so it will be proven that she was last seen, but it will not be
logical to consider her guilty. The fact of the last seen should therefore be
supported by other factors so that the circumstances are infallibly determining
and convincingly prove the person's guilt. The court must be alert while
deciding such matters as even minor details can change the entire scenario of
Aarushi Talwar's Murder And The Ongoing TrialBackground
The Aarushi Talwar case is often referred to as the "Noida Double Murder Case".
In this case, 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar was brutally murdered and 45-year-old
Hemraj Banjade, a domestic help, was murdered in the same manner. Both were
killed on the night of 15-16 May 2008 at Aarushi's house.
The case received extensive media attention. He made various allegations about
the nature of both the deceased and the accused. Moreover, critics also cited it
as a media trial. A sessions court in Ghaziabad found Aarushi's parents guilty
as prime suspects after investigating two CBI teams. The case was appealed to
the Allahabad High Court.
The dead body of young 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar at 6:00 AM at L-32, Jalayu
Vihar Flats in Sector 25 Noida, Uttar Pradesh on May 16. At that time in the
F.I.R the father, Rajesh Talwar named their missing domestic help, Hemraj as the
The next day, May 17, the decomposed body of Hemraj was found on the terrace.
Aarushi Talwar (24 May 1994 – 16 May 2008) was a student of Delhi Public School
Noida. She was the daughter of a dentist couple, Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur
Talwar, who were born through IVF (in vitro-fertilization) treatment. She was
the only daughter of a couple of dentists and they lived in the very apartment
in which she was found brutally murdered. Hemraj made a living as a domestic
helper and cook in the Talwar family and lived in the utility room of the
After the discovery of Hemraj's decomposed dead body, the possibility of him
being a suspect in the murder of Aarushi Talwar was ruled out and the prime
suspects were now Aarushi's parents.
Police have developed two theories for the motive of Dr. Rajesh Talwar to
murder Arushi and Hemraj:
- Rajesh Talwar murdered the two in a fit of rage on seeing the deceased
in a compromising position on the fateful night. OR
- Hemraj blackmailing Rajesh over his alleged extramarital affair with
Anita Daurani, with whom they shared a Noida dental clinic, and Hemraj
confronting Aarushi about the same. The case was handed over to the CBI. The
CBI team suspected the assistants of Talwar Krishna.
Along with two other domestic servants - Rajkumar and Vijay. The CBI conducted a
narco analysis of the three suspects. The three suspects confessed their
involvement in the narco analysis and are believed to have killed Aarushi after
they tried to sexually assault her and since Hemraj witnessed the same, they
also killed Hemraj. But all three men were released because no evidence was
found against them.
Moreover, at the same time, the Talwars cleared themselves in the narco analysis
and nothing was found against them and they were not involved at the crime
scene. According to sec. 45, the results of the drug analysis test are not
binding for the court.
In September 2009, the case was transferred to a new CBI team headed by SP
Neelabh Kishore with additional SP AGL Kaul as the investigating officer. A
second CBI team suspected the Talwar couple but due to insufficient evidence
suggested closure of the case and submitted a closure report stating that
servants Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay has a clean chit and is not involved in the
crime as they said during the narco tests that it is not reliable and they also
have a valid alibi.
Moreover, there is no evidence that they were at Talwar's residence at the time
of the incident. They also said that the possibility of an outsider committing
the murders was ruled out because there were no signs of forced entry and no
other evidence to suggest the presence of an outsider. So, when all
possibilities are ruled out, all evidence points to the Talwars.
The CBI has suspicions Mr. and Mrs. Talwar on circumstantial evidence but due to
lack of evidence submitted a final report on 29 December 2010. In January 2011,
the Talwars filed a petition against the CBI in a Ghaziabad court in an attempt
to close the case. In February 2011, the Hon'ble Ghaziabad court converted the
CBI's final report to the prosecution and Mr. and Mrs. Talwar were summoned to
the court and thus a case was filed in the court against the parents of the
deceased based on the final report of the CBI .
Hemraj As A Suspect:
On the morning of May 16,when Aarushi's dead body was found at the Talwar
residence in her room. Her parents saw her dead first, and when the maid entered
the house, then she
saw the dead body of Aarushi lying on the bed and it was covered with a flannel
blanket. Both the parents and the police suspected the live-in servant, Hemraj
as the prime suspect here in the murder because he was not present at the scene
of the crime. Rajesh Talwar suspected Hemraj of Aarushi's murder. Moreover, he
told the police several times to catch Hemraj and stop wasting time at the
Talwar residence while Hemraj flees the scene after committing the murder. He
asked them to go to Hemraj's native village in Nepal and he
offered them Rs. 25,000 for the same. The police also initially suspected Hemraj
of the murder and assumed that Hemraj might have drunk Scotch whiskey from a
bottle that was lying on the table. Then in that drunken state of mind he might
have gone to Aarushi's room and tried to sexually assault her. She could have
resisted it, so he killed her and cut her throat.
But on 17th may police discover Hemraj's body on the terrace when the terrace
door was broken open, the police's suspicion of Hemraj was disproved and it was
also shameful part on the part of the police as they failed to investigate the
Krishna, Rajkumar And Vijay As Suspects:
These three are other servants of the Talwars .All the workers were of Nepalese
origin. They were Hemraj's friends. Drug analysis of all of them shows that they
were involved in the murder of the twins. Based on Narco analysis , CBI
recovered blood stained khukhri and trousers. All three in the narco analysis
confessed to the crime and discussed the chain of events, but there was a
confrontation in the sequence of events narrated by them.
Krishna decided to plead for an alibi. Both Krishna's family members and his
landlord testified that Krishna was in the house when the murders occurred.
Puneesh Tandon who
is a neighbor and employer of Vijay Mandal testified in court that Vijay Mandal
was present in their garage at the time of the murders. Rajkumar was employed by
Daurrani and Daurrani testified that he was at the Daurrani house until 12:30
and then everyone in the house was asleep. Moreover, it has a watchman Jalvayu
Vihar , he testified that he did not see anyone wandering around in a suspicious
condition. He didn't even see anyone going in or out of the apartments.
In their defense, they said the drug test was not admissible as evidence.
Additionally, no DNA of either of them was found at Talwar's residence. The
investigation team was unable to abstract DNA from the blood on the khukhri. So
they found no strong evidence against them, 3 of them were released.
PARENTS AS SUSPECTS:
There is no direct evidence and based on circumstantial evidence the CBI
suspected the parents: How is it possible that the parents slept all night and
did not hear what was happening in the house? Or how is it possible that they
didn't hear Aarushi scream.
The door of Aarushi's room was such that it could be opened from inside and keys
had to be used to open it from outside. The room keys were left with Nupur, then
who else could open the door except the parents. Another possibility is to see
Aarushi and Hemraj in a compromising position, Rajesh killed them in a fit of
rage. So there is the possibility of an honor killing. They cremated Aarushi's
body in hastw. So the cremation was unduly hasty.
Aarushi's father tried to mislead the investigation by asking the police to look
for Hemraj and also offered to pay their way to his hometown in Nepal. Later
when he was asked for the keys to the terrace he denied knowing where the keys
were and finally when Hemraj's body was found he said he would not be able to
say whether it was Hemraj's body.
Rajesh's extra marital affair was known to both the servant and Hemraj and hence
he was blackmailed.
The golf club that was suspected to be the murder weapon appeared to have been
cleaned and appeared to be different from the other golf clubs.
The judge in the Trial Court was Justice Shyam Lal, called 'Saza Lal' at the
Ghaziabad bar for his strict approach towards the accused. That was the nickname
he went by from his days at the Bulandshahr District Court.
Almost a month after the crime was committed, a survey was conducted in six
major Indian cities. A survey conducted by the Hindustan Times found that nine
out of ten people feel that the media is "obsessed" with the Arushi Talwar
murder case. 75% of respondents said they follow the news very closely. They
also believed that the media had already declared Rajesh Talwar guilty and 64%
believed that the coverage would distort both the investigation and the courts.
Interestingly, a perusal of the 210-page judgment of the Trial Court would
reveal that public interest (or perception) weighs heavily on the judge's mind.
The judge repeatedly cited this factor in drawing conclusions.
Here is a list of instances where he relied on public pressure to reach
At page 51 of his decision, he relied on Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
to dispose of the doubts raised by the defense in the theory of
grave and sudden provocation advanced by the CBI.
The judge borrowed the words of the Supreme Court to observe:
"Only reasonable doubt belongs to the accused. Otherwise, any practical justice
system will collapse and lose credibility with the community.
On page 54 of the judgment, he quotes Justice Holmes as saying, "This court is
aware of the felt needs of the time" as he managed to convey the message that
the court was aware of the fact that the conviction of the accused was
Again relying on National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ram Krishna
page 58, he says:
"…..if the law does not respond to the needs of a changing society, then it will
either stifle the growth of society and stifle its progress."
And finally at page 80 of his decision, State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad
is cited to dispel serious doubts raised by the defense about the
prosecution story. The following excerpt was quoted from the case as if to argue
that disbelieving the prosecution's story would harm society as a whole-
"On the other hand, if the traditional rule regarding the prosecution's burden
of proof is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the perpetrators of
serious crimes would be the main beneficiaries and society would be the victim."
The judge's behavior drew the ire of the Allahabad High Court. In the High
Court, a bench of the Appellate Division heard where one judge wrote a five-page
opinion with the sole motive of condemning Justice Shyam Lal's conduct during
Apart from the public interest angle, Justice Shyam Lal relied heavily on
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The section states –
If any fact is particularly within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is on him.
The provision shifts the burden to the accused when the murder is committed in
secrecy. However, the burden of proof is shifted only when the prosecution is
unable to establish certain facts that are particularly well known to the
accused. This provision was applied to Talwars after the testimony of Bharati
Mandal. Bharati Mandal was the maid who first visited the Talwars on the morning
of 16 May and also the first outsider to see Arushi's dead body.
According to Judge Shyam Lal, the burden of proof shifted from the prosecution
to the defense the moment the maid said the door to the Talwars' flat was locked
from the inside. However, this was a problematic assumption for one main reason
– Bharati Mandal was the trainer of the CBI. It is well settled in law that the
testimony of a learned witness cannot be relied upon. However, the court
overlooked this fact because Mandal, to quote the judge, was—
"…a totally illiterate and bucolic lady from the lower strata of society and
hailing from Malda district of West Bengal who came to N.O.I.D.A. perform menial
jobs to support herself and her family…"
The Court then relied on section 106 to essentially state that it was for the
Talwars to explain everything that happened in the flat during the said six and
a half hours and if they did not, it was a strong indication of their guilt.
The judge summarily dismissed the Talwars' sleep defense. The Talwars claimed
that they were sleeping in their room, which had a loud air conditioner, and
therefore did not hear the sound of the door opening or closing or the sound of
footsteps in the apartment. A sound stimulation test confirmed this. However,
Justice Shyam Lal chose not to believe it. He sentenced both to life
A perusal of the Allahabad High Court's 273-page judgment in the Talwars' appeal
shows that it was highly skeptical of the CBI's theory of grave and sudden
According to the CBI, the chain of events was as follows – Rajesh Talwar saw
Arushi and Hemraj in a compromising position in Arushi's room. He then took his
golf club and hit both Arushi and Hemraj on the head with it. He and his wife
then wrapped Hemraj's body in a sheet and dragged it to the terrace, where he
cut his throat with a scalpel. He then returned and slit Arushi's throat, after
which the two dressed up the crime scene by arranging her toys around her and
covering her with a sheet.
However, many questions remained unanswered by the CBI. For example - Hemraj's
blood was not found in Arushi's room, which is impossible if both were hit with
a golf club in the same room and Arushi's blood was splattered on the walls.
Additionally, there was no evidence of rape or sexual assault. Furthermore,
narcoanalysis and brain mapping of the Talwars were inconclusive.
On the other hand, the narco-analysis of the servants (namely Krishna, who was
Rajesh Talwar's compactor and Rajkumar, who was the domestic help of a close
friend of the Talwars) showed that they blamed each other for the murders.
Additionally, a trace of Hemraj's blood was found in a pillowcase recovered from
Krishna's room (but this was later changed by the CBI to show that the
pillowcase was found from Arushi's room and not from Krishna's room.
The report states that it was found from Krishna's room was full of
"typographical errors", according to the CBI). While progress was made in this
direction, both servants were found to have solid alibis, rendering the theory
obsolete. Hence, the CBI once again targeted the parents and if they failed,
filed a closure report.
In its ruling, the High Court called the doctors' testimony "medically
blasphemous" for supporting the prosecution's theory of grave and sudden
provocation. It happened that the participating doctors significantly improved
their statements during the examination compared to what they had previously
stated in their statements several times under Section 161 of the Criminal Code.
The court also noted that in the absence of evidence of intercourse, Rajesh
Talwar had no motive to murder his only daughter. Furthermore, the court ruled
that Bharati Mandal's testimony was not reliable because she was a trained
witness. The court also noted how the CBI planted (for example, Sanjay Chauhan,
a government employee, was deposed to show the Talwars' lack of emotion after
the discovery of their daughter's body) and trained witnesses (Bharati Mandal, a
maid and two doctors) to corroborate the theory of grave and sudden provocation.
The forensic lab report showing the blood of Hemraj in Krishna's pillowcase was
held to be authentic by the Court. This also meant that the CBI tampered with
the evidence in its attempt to prove the presence of Hemraj's blood in Arushi's
room. Finally, the court cited the Supreme Court's decision to negate Justice
Shyam Lal's thoughtless use of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act at the
trial level. The decision stated that the provision does not shift the entire
burden of proof to the prosecution. The court therefore found the defendants not
guilty and released them.
The CBI has decided to appeal the Allahabad High Court decision to the Supreme
Court in March in the year, i.e. 2018. The success of the appeal is highly
The trial court's decision was largely based on two grounds:
- The last seen theory, according to which the persons last seen with the
deceased were supposed to explain the circumstances of the death.
- Application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which shifts the
burden of proof to the accused in special circumstances.
It was only because of these two assumptions that the CBI succeeded in court
despite a story with several missing links, uncertain medical evidence,
supported by a trained and planted witness. Once the High Court ruled against
the application of Section 106, it is virtually impossible for the prosecution
to establish a chain of circumstances to secure the conviction of the Talwars.
There seems to be a trend of sloppy investigations among our investigative
"We use a stick to investigate. The suspect is arrested. He was taken to the
police station and tortured. He is forced to confess."- S.R. Darapuri
former Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh.
Avirook Sen, who attended the trial of the Talwars in the District Court of
Ghaziabad and followed the case closely, wrote in his book about the instance
which highlights the poor standard of investigation in our country-
"For example, in Aarushi's panchnama, a line appears to have been added (visible
in small letters) that her pajama strings were untied. This matched the theory -
formulated two years later - that her genitalia had been cleaned. Singh
(sub-inspector) denied making this amateurish alteration of the document... The
judge smiled... Bachu Singh offered a wonderfully simple explanation for it in
court: 'Hum aise hi karte hain' (this is how we do it)."
The law does not favor one form of evidence over another. What matters on a
case-by-case basis is that each piece of evidence, which is direct evidence and
circumstantial evidence, should be given great weight. These vary on a
case-by-case basis depending on the facts of the case. Circumstantial evidence
is very often debated because it has less weight and value compared to direct
evidence. But this is not always true in practice and under the law.
It can be stated that the principle of "last seen together" has been applied by
the courts so cautiously that if there is no corroborative or circumstantial
evidence, no conviction has been given. Any mistake or distortion of fact can
cost the life of the accused who claims to be innocent. The circumstance of the
last seen theory together does not lead to the conclusion that the crime was
committed by the accused. The connection between the accused and the crime must
be something more fundamental. However, the principles help the courts shift the
burden of proof to the accused and the accused could create an interface in the
chain of circumstantial evidence. Otherwise, he gets no benefit of the doubt.
At last, it can be firmly extrapolated that the Aarushi Talwar murder case
continued to be the epitome of what we now call the 'perfect murder mystery'.
Despite the fact that there is extensive evidence and exhibits, the abstract
count of evidence was very complex because the chain of circumstances must be
consistent with the chain of evidence. However, on reading the judgment of the
Ghaziabad Trial Court and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the reader
feels that the second judgment is more accurate and precise as the precedents
cited by the court were largely consistent with the circumstances suggested in
this case .
- Batuk Lal, The law of evidence Central Law Agency, (22nd Edition)
- Ratanlal and Dhirajlal , The law of edition , Lexis nexis (24th Edition
- Avirook Sen, Aarushi, Penguin Books Ltd. (2015), p.256 (hereinafter
- https://www.latestlaws.com/latth est-news/supreme-court-last-seen-alive-weak-circumstantial-evidence-sustain-conviction-murder
- Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005)
- Bodhraj V. State of J&K" – 2002
- Chandmal vs Province of Rajasthan
- Kashi Ram V. State of Rajasthan" – 2006SC
- Khem Karan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Sudam Pandey v. State of Bihar (2001
Written By: Kaushiki Singh