Abstract

The constitutionality of convictions based on circumstantial evidence has always been under scrutiny and yet several convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. This makes a reader wonder regarding the legality of such convictions and the principles governing them. For a lawful conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it must be based on corroborated circumstantial evidence which forms a complete and unbroken chain of evidence. The circumstantial evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and must not support the hypothesis of his innocence. The principles governing such convictions has been developed through various precedents evolved through judicial interpretation of cases. The aim of convictions based on circumstantial evidence is not to infringe the right to fair trial guaranteed to the accused under the Constitution of India, but it is to deliver justice to the victim when the guilt of the accused is well established. Our judiciary has made sure to balance the rights of the accused and the plaintiff in such cases. This research paper delves into the intricate realm of convictions based on circumstantial evidence, examining the legal complexities, challenges, and implications associated with such cases. The study scrutinizes the reliability and limitations of circumstantial evidence, considering its potential impact on the justice system. The paper reviews landmark legal cases to illustrate the nuances of convictions relying on circumstantial evidence emphasizing the significance of establishing a cogent chain of events, while addressing the inherent vulnerability to misinterpretation and miscarriages of justice.

Keywords