The following are the two different types of evidence:
1. Direct evidence, i.e., the testimony of a witness as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue. It also includes the production of an original document.
Image Source: blog.lesaonline.org
ADVERTISEMENTS:
2. Circumstantial evidence, i.e., the testimony of a witness as to other relevant facts, from which the facts in issue may be inferred. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence should be so strong as to point unmistakably to the guilt of the accused. The fundamental rule by which the effect of the circumstantial evidence is to be estimated is that, in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.
It is to be noted that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.
In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and it must be such as to show that, within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. (Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 343)
In Govind Reddy v. State of Mysore (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 29), it was observed that the principle that the inculpatory fact must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of guilt, does not mean that any extravagant hypothesis would be sufficient to sustain the principle, but that the hypothesis suggested must be reasonable.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thus, before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it need not meet every hypothesis suggested by the accused, however fanciful and extravagant it may be.
The Kerala High Court has observed that, in a murder case, just because the doctor conducting the autopsy is not in a position to give a definite opinion regarding the cause of death, the Court does not become helpless. It can still convict the accused on the basis of other circumstantial evidence. (State of Kerala v. Mani, 1992 Cri. L. J. 1682)
In a case decided by the Allahabad High Court, the prosecution’s charge of murder was based purely on circumstantial evidence. No postmortem was performed, nor was even the dead body recovered. The Court held that the factum of murder must first be established by the strongest possible evidence. The absence of such evidence was fatal to the case of the prosecution. (Ramua v. State of U.P., 1992 Cri. L. J. 3972)