{"id":350164,"date":"2025-06-09T16:00:55","date_gmt":"2025-06-09T10:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350164"},"modified":"2025-06-11T17:30:45","modified_gmt":"2025-06-11T12:00:45","slug":"circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Circumstantial Evidence | Inability to explain certain situations can\u2019t be made a basis to relieve prosecution from discharging its primary burden: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> While considering a matter wherein the appellant (convict) who was convicted for murdering his friend had challenged his conviction, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma*<\/span>, JJ., took note of the inconsistent version of events presented by the prosecution and opined that accused person’s inability to explain certain circumstances, could not be made the basis<\/span> to relieve the prosecution from discharging its primary burden of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n

It was stated that in criminal jurisprudence, it is a time-tested proposition that the primary burden falls upon the shoulders of the prosecution and it is only if the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden beyond reasonable doubt that the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the evidence against him or to present a defence<\/p>\n

Background and Legal Trajectory:<\/h3>\n

The convict and his friend (M) were studying at Bagla Homeopathy Medical College, Arvat Chandrapur, Maharashtra. They were students of first year and often used to commute together on their two-wheelers. On the unfortunate day of 16-9-2010, the friends left for their college, by the time evening approached, M\u2019s father discovered that his son had not reached home, he tried to find out and eventually lodged a missing report. The next day the dead body of M was found and accordingly, a criminal case came to be registered against unknown persons.<\/p>\n

During the investigation M\u2019s father raised suspicion on the convict and subsequently the police prepared the chargesheet wherein the convict was alleged to have caused death of deceased M by shooting him by the gun belonging to the convict\u2019s father.<\/p>\n

The Trial Court found that the convict had killed M using the service gun belonging to his father when he came to drop him after college. Therefore, the Trial Court held the convict guilty for the commission of the offences under Sections 302<\/a>, 201<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) and Section 5<\/a> read with 25(1)(a)<\/a> of Arms Act, 1959<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved with the afore-stated verdict, the convict approached Bombay High Court, however, the convict did not get any relief from the High Court. The High Court while deliberating upon the matter relied heavily on the subsequent conduct of the convict, especially removal of the dead body, concealment of clothes and eventually upheld the conviction.<\/p>\n

Thereafter the convict approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Court\u2019s Assessment on Primary Burden of the Prosecution in case of accused person’s inability to explain:<\/h3>\n

Perusing the matter, the Court had to consider whether the finding of the High Court regarding the conviction is sustainable in light of the evidence on record. The Court noted that cause death of M was undisputed. It is also admitted that the convict had indeed removed the dead body of the deceased and had cleaned up the scene of crime. It is also a matter of record that the discoveries made under Section 27<\/a> of Evidence Act<\/a> were not challenged by the convict as he had admitted that various articles belonging to himself and the deceased, and connected with the alleged incident, were discovered in furtherance of his disclosures. All these aspects, however, assume greater relevance for the offence under Section 201<\/a> IPC<\/a>. Insofar as the offences under Section 302<\/a> IPC<\/a> and Section 25<\/a> of Arms Act<\/a> are concerned, the Court pointed out that the prosecution case lacks any substantiation. The deceased was shot by the pistol belonging to the father of the convict and in the house of the convict, \u201cBut the pertinent question that craves for an answer is \u2014 who pulled the trigger? Despite two rounds of litigation, the question is yet to find an answer<\/span>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Perusing the analysis of the case as done by the Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court pointed out the circumstances which left missing links in the chain of the prosecution, such as- trajectory of the bullet fired at the deceased; nature of injuries in accidental\/suicidal gunshot cases.<\/p>\n

The Court further pointed out that the High Court rejected the defence of the convict by simply observing that the homicidal death of the deceased was \u2018admitted\u2019 on oath. There is no such admission qua the nature of death. Contrarily, the convict had deposed on oath that the death was \u2018accidental\u2019, a version that he has carried consistently up.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that on a careful reading of the impugned judgment, one would unmistakably note that the subsequent conduct of the appellant in indulging in destruction of evidence weighed heavily against him before the Court. The inability of the convict to explain certain aspects also weighed against him. Undoubtedly, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, facts indicating subsequent conduct are relevant facts under Section 8<\/a> of the Evidence Act<\/a>. Equally, the inconsistencies in the version of the convict are also relevant. However, the occasion to examine the version\/defence of the convict could have arisen only if the prosecution had succeeded in discharging its primary burden beyond reasonable doubt<\/span>. The High Court fell in a grave error in placing greater reliance on the loopholes in the convict\u2019s version without first determining whether the chain of circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution was complete or not. Pertinently, the inability of an accused to offer plausible explanation on certain aspects would not automatically absolve the prosecution of its evidentiary burden, which must be discharged first and beyond doubt<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The Court further pointed out that the defence taken by the convict since the beginning of the case was not tested by the Trial Court and the High Court. Despite a specific defence taken before both the Courts, the Courts simply did not examine the same in the manner required by law. The probability of the version put across by the convict ought to have been tested against the circumstantial theory of the prosecution. In other words, it was incumbent upon the Courts below to have examined whether the defence taken by the appellant was a probable defence or not. The failure to do so has certainly resulted into a failure of justice and it is sufficient to reopen the evidence in the instant appeal.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that it is trite law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is relevant. However, it is not conclusive of the matter. There is no rule of law that the absence of motive would ipso facto dismember the chain of evidence and would lead to automatic acquittal of the accused. In the instant case, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have invariably revealed that the convict and the deceased were friends and there was no ill-will between them. Even the father of the deceased has testified to that effect. Since the evidence suggests that they were friends, the fact that the appellant brought him home could not be termed as per-se incriminating. Therefore, motive explains the circumstances on record and enables the Court to draw better inference in a case based on circumstantial evidence.<\/p>\n

Vis-a-vis the convict\u2019s subsequent conduct, the Court pointed out that that the same was consistent with the theory of accidental death. That his act of removal of the dead body and concealment of articles was a result of fear of his father – is quite natural. A young boy studying in first year of college, with no criminal background and with no motive in sight, would certainly, have become scared on seeing that his friend has accidentally shot himself in the living room of his house with the pistol belonging to his father and is lying in a pool of blood. The subsequent conduct of cleaning up the scene and restoring the living room in its original shape, although punishable in law, does not become so unnatural that it could be made the basis to convict him<\/span> for the commission of murder without additional evidence to that effect.<\/p>\n

The subsequent acts of cleaning up the crime scene and making false enquiries amount to disappearance of evidence and raise grave suspicion against the convict. However, mere suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial<\/span>. The suspicion ought to have been substantiated by undeniable, reliable, unequivocal, consistent and credible circumstantial evidence, which does not leave the probability of any other theory. In the instant case, the theory put across by the convict is fairly probable and is supported by medical evidence including the examination of the bullet injury and trajectory. Contrarily, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is not supported by medical evidence and is not consistent with the bullet injury and trajectory.<\/p>\n

The rigid principles underlying an examination based on circumstantial evidence are based on the premise that the very act of arriving at a finding of guilt on the basis of inferences must be performed with great caution and margin of error must be kept at a minimum. Naturally, there could be some inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances in the natural course of things and mere presence of inconsistencies does not automatically demolish the case of the prosecution. However, the prosecution must be able to explain the inconsistencies to the satisfaction of the Court<\/span>. \u201cFor, the ultimate test is the judicial satisfaction of the Court. In the present case, the counter probabilities and inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances have not been explained\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is a time-tested proposition of law that when a Court is faced with a situation wherein two different views appear to be reasonably possible, the matter is to be decided in favour of the accused. The benefit of a counter possibility goes to the accused in such cases.<\/p>\n

Decision:<\/h3>\n

With the afore-stated analysis, the Court held that the High Court erred in arriving at the finding of guilt and in upholding the verdict of the Trial Court. The circumstantial evidence on record was not consistent and left a reasonable possibility of an alternate outcome i.e. of innocence of the convict on the charges of murder and illegal usage of firearm. Accordingly, the impugned order and judgment were partially set aside to the extent of conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302<\/a> IPC<\/a> and Section 5<\/a> read with 25(1)(a)<\/a> of Arms Act<\/a>. Consequently, the convict was acquitted for the offences under Section 302<\/a> of IPC<\/a> and Section 5<\/a> read with 25(1)(a)<\/a> of Arms Act<\/a>. His conviction under Section 201<\/a> IPC<\/a> was sustained, and he was sentenced for the period already undergone by him.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n
Citation:<\/span>
\n2025 SCC OnLine SC 1304<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Appellants\u00a0:<\/span>
\nVaibhav<\/p>\n

Respondents\u00a0:<\/span>
\nState of Maharashtra<\/td>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case<\/p>\n

For Appellant(s):<\/span>
\nMr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span>
\nMr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CORAM\u00a0:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"B.V.
\nB.V. Nagarathna, J.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Satish
\nSatish Chandra Sharma, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The subsequent acts of cleaning up the crime scene and making false enquiries amount to disappearance of evidence and raise grave suspicion against the convict. However, mere suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":350214,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[3228,3433,83257,60145,44666,83256,83255],"class_list":["post-350164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-burden_of_proof","tag-circumstantial_evidence","tag-evidence-tampering","tag-incriminating-circumstances","tag-justice-satish-chandra-sharma","tag-link-in-chain-of-circumstances","tag-primary-burden-of-prosecution"],"yoast_head":"\nSC judgment on accused person's inability to explain | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Examine the Supreme Court ruling on the accused person's inability to explain and its impact on prosecution's burden of proof.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Circumstantial Evidence | Inability to explain certain situations can\u2019t be made a basis to relieve prosecution from discharging its primary burden: SC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Circumstantial Evidence | Inability to explain certain situations can't be made a basis to relieve prosecution from discharging its primary burden: SC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-09T10:30:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-11T12:00:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-13.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Circumstantial Evidence | Inability to explain certain situations can\u2019t be made a basis to relieve prosecution from discharging its primary burden: SC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"SC judgment on accused person's inability to explain | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-13.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-09T10:30:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-11T12:00:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"Examine the Supreme Court ruling on the accused person's inability to explain and its impact on prosecution's burden of proof.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-13.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-13.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"accused person's inability to explain; burden of proof\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Circumstantial Evidence | Inability to explain certain situations can\u2019t be made a basis to relieve prosecution from discharging its primary burden: SC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC judgment on accused person's inability to explain | SCC Times","description":"Examine the Supreme Court ruling on the accused person's inability to explain and its impact on prosecution's burden of proof.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Circumstantial Evidence | Inability to explain certain situations can\u2019t be made a basis to relieve prosecution from discharging its primary burden: SC","og_description":"Circumstantial Evidence | Inability to explain certain situations can't be made a basis to relieve prosecution from discharging its primary burden: SC","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-09T10:30:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-11T12:00:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-13.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Circumstantial Evidence | Inability to explain certain situations can\u2019t be made a basis to relieve prosecution from discharging its primary burden: SC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/","name":"SC judgment on accused person's inability to explain | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-13.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-09T10:30:55+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-11T12:00:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"Examine the Supreme Court ruling on the accused person's inability to explain and its impact on prosecution's burden of proof.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-13.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-13.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"accused person's inability to explain; burden of proof"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/09\/circumstantial-evidence-inability-to-explain-situations-prosecution-primary-burden-supreme-court-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Circumstantial Evidence | Inability to explain certain situations can\u2019t be made a basis to relieve prosecution from discharging its primary burden: SC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/shared-image-13.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":254715,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/25\/false-defence-no-ground-to-convict-if-chain-of-circumstantial-evidence-is-incomplete-10-years-after-wifes-death-sc-sets-man-free\/","url_meta":{"origin":350164,"position":0},"title":"‘False defence no ground to convict if chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete’. 10 years after wife’s death, SC sets man free","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ has held that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused. Background\u00a0 The ruling came in a case where the appellant was convicted under Sections 302\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295863,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/chain-circumstantial-evidence-incomplete-interfere-with-acquittal-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":350164,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete to interfere with acquittal\u2019; Supreme Court affirms acquittal in 25-year-old case","author":"Ridhi","date":"July 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court concurred with the Punjab and Haryana High Court that incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain of evidence was not complete to interfere with a degree of certainty of accused having committed the crime.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"chain of circumstantial evidence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/chain-of-circumstantial-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/chain-of-circumstantial-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/chain-of-circumstantial-evidence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/chain-of-circumstantial-evidence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243895,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/15\/homicidal-death\/","url_meta":{"origin":350164,"position":2},"title":"Bom HC | Can a person be held liable under S. 302 IPC on the basis of \u2018last seen\u2019 theory and not being able to offer sufficient explanation? Significance of \u2018last seen\u2019 theory in establishing homicidal nature of death discussed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and N.J. Jamadar, JJ., while addressing the present matter, expressed that: Where the prosecution succeeds in discharging its primary burden and brings evidence on record which indicates that the facts, thereby proved, rest within the special knowledge of the accused,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":342332,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/26\/conviction-husband-charged-with-wife-murder-section106-evidence-act-direct-evidence-prosecution-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":350164,"position":3},"title":"\u2018S. 106 exists to resolve situations where prosecution can\u2019t lead direct evidence\u2019; SC elaborates key principles of Section 106 Evidence Act","author":"Sucheta","date":"February 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court found that circumstances in the instant case constituted more than a prima facie case to enable the prosecution to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act and shift the burden on the accused husband to explain what had happened on the day & date his wife died.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"section 106 evidence act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/section-106-evidence-act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/section-106-evidence-act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/section-106-evidence-act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/section-106-evidence-act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":204074,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/22\/section-106-evidence-act-not-a-substitute-for-the-burden-of-proof-which-rests-on-prosecution-murder-accused-acquitted-holding-prosecution-case-based-on-presumption-bombay-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":350164,"position":4},"title":"Section 106 Evidence Act not a substitute for the burden of proof which rests on prosecution; murder accused acquitted holding prosecution case based on presumption: Bombay HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S.S. Shinde and A.S. Gadkari, JJ., allowed a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC. The appellant and the deceased were living in a live-in-relationship. Both were married\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":287257,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/20\/circumstantial-evidence-to-be-accompanied-with-motive-and-corroborating-evidence-supreme-court-acquits-men-accused-of-murder-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":350164,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Circumstantial evidence to be accompanied with motive and corroborating evidence\u2019; Supreme Court acquits men accused in 2001 murder case","author":"Editor","date":"March 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court opined that the evidence has to be scrutinized so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and directly points to the guilt of the convict.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"evidence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-787.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-787.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-787.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-787.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=350164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350164\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/350214"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=350164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=350164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=350164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}