Circumstantial evidence

  1. In a case of circumstantial evidence, every chain of evidence of prosecution must be linked with the other chain of evidence of prosecution — If one chain is broken, then the case of prosecution automatically falls on the ground — The evidence of the prosecution brought on record cannot be appreciated deeply as in that case it is likely to prejudice the case of either of the parties. Muhammad Shafat and another  v. The State 2002 SCR 450 (A)
  2. In absence of direct evidence circumstantial evidence should be examined carefully because evidence of this kind may be fabricated — If last seen evidence is considered along with other parts of evidence then it is not safe to rely upon such evidence. Ajaib Sikandar v. Muhammad Javaid & another 2006 SCR 49 (A)
  3. In case of circumstantial evidence where no enmity is alleged between the parties, no motive is alleged by the prosecution for commission offence, then the Court has to examine the evidence with due care and caution — While scrutinizing the evidence if the Court reaches on the conclusion that from circumstantial evidence the facts are proved then no hypothesis consistent with the innocence of accused can be suggested — If facts alleged can be reconciled with the reasonable hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused then the case has to be considered one of no evidence — Keeping in view the principle governing circumstantial evidence, analysis of entire evidence and finding of Court is necessary. Rehmat Ali v. Samundar Khan 2009 SCR 252 (A)
  4. Circumstantial evidence — Means evidence afforded by testimony other than the eye-witnesses which bear upon a fact or other subsidiary facts which are relied upon as consistent that no result other than truth of principal fact and facts shall be so proved that they shall not leave any possibility of innocence of accused — This possibility shall be of such a high degree and standard that a prudent man after considering all facts and circumstances is able to reach at the conclusion that he is justified in holding the accused guilty and from the evidence no other inference can be drawn except the guilt of accused — The circumstances from which the inference adverse to accused is sought to be drawn must be proved beyond all  doubts. Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (A)
  5. If a case is solely based on circumstantial evidence then it is necessary to prove the motive.  Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (B) 1992 SCR 1 rel.
  6. If the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the recovery of crime weapon is of paramount importance. Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (C)
  7. In a case of circumstantial evidence where prosecution rests its case on the recovery of weapon of offence, the recovery is very important and fate of the case rests upon this recovery. Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (D)
  8. When the case solely depends upon the circumstantial evidence, the testimony of a witness has to be scrutinized with great care and caution. Wazarat H. v. Nazir Akhtar 2009 SCR 273 (G)
  9. The circumstantial evidence is conclusive only when it can possibly tend to no other inference except the guilt of the accused and the facts should exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence of accused before conviction can be based on such evidence — The circumstances must unmistakably point towards guilt of accused and the circumstances shall be so connected that these shall form a chain of events and every link of chain in the circumstances must be proved. Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (K)
  10. Conviction can be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence in absence of direct evidence because a man can tell lie but circumstances never tell lie — Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence — If it excludes all hypothesis of innocence of accused — Circumstantial evidence must be incompatible with that of innocence of accused — It should be incapable of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused. M. Latif Butt v. Shehtab 2009 SCR 432 (A)
  11. Rule as to quality of circumstantial evidence is that the facts proved must be incompatible with innocence of accused and incapable of any other explanation; upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. Muhammad Latif Butt v. Shehtab & 4 others 2009 SCR 432 (B)
  12. In case of circumstantial evidence failure of one link breaks the chain — Thus every link in circumstantial evidence must be proved — If any link is not proved — Then conviction cannot be recorded — Because it is basic duty of the prosecution to prove all the links of chain of circumstantial evidence. Muhammad Latif Butt v. Shehtab & 4 others 2009 SCR 432 (C)
  13. Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature that it should lead to one possible inference leading to the guilt of accused — Failure of one link would destroy whole links of circumstantial evidence. Muhammad Latif Butt v. Shehtab & 4 others 2009 SCR 432 (D)
  14. Conviction can be recorded only if it excludes all hypothesis of innocence of accused — Circumstantial evidence must be incompatible with the innocence of accused — It should be incompatible of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of accused. Muhammad Latif Butt v. Shehtab & 4 others 2009 SCR 432 (E)
  15. It is the basic duty of the prosecution to prove all links of circumstantial evidence — Failure of one link breaks the chain — Every link in circumstantial evidence must be proved  — If any link is not proved — Then conviction cannot be maintained. M. Latif Butt v. Shehtab 2009 SCR 432 (F)
  16. Evidentiary value — Principles — Even, death penalty can also be awarded on circumstantial evidence but it should be beyond any shadow of doubt — The chain of facts be such that reasonable inference can be drawn that the accused has committed the offence — All the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused — If any link is missing that will  destroy the whole lings of such evidence and all the links of the circumstances must lead to be guilt of the accused — The circumstantial evidence should be so interconnected that it forms such a continuous claims — That its one end touches the dead-body and the other the neck of the accused thereby excluding all hypothesis of his innocence. Munawar Hussain and 2 others v. Imran Waseem and another 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 374 (B)
  17. Murder case — conviction of accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence — law does not bar to convict an accused — even a capital punishment can also be awarded — provided that no link in the chain should be missing and all the circumstances must lead to the guilt of the accused. Muhammad Tasleem and another v. The State and another 2014 SCR 893 (A)
  18. Circumstantial evidence — can only form basis for conviction when it is incompatible with the innocence of accused or the guilt of any other person and in no manner be incapable of explaining upon any reasonable hypotheses except that of the guilt of accused and if no link in the chain found missing, the circumstantial evidence can be safely relied and conviction could be recorded on the basis of that. M. Tasleem v. The State and another 2014 SCR 893 (B) 2009 SCR 432 rel.
  19. Every link in circumstantial evidence should be proved by cogent evidence, if not, then no conviction could be maintained or awarded to an accused. Mst. Maqsooda Begum & 6 others v. Muhammad Masood & 2 others 2014 SCR 1653 (A)
  20. Evidentiary value — Principle — The basic principle in the case of circumstantial evidence for awarding the capital punishment is that it forms such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead-body and the other touches the neck of the accused. Muhammad Babar v. State through Advocate General 2014 SCR 1585 (I)  20013 SCR 374  rel.
  21. Appreciation of — conviction — It is almost now settled that for awarding punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must take proper care and caution and if such evidence creates doubt or if any of the links of chain of the circumstantial evidence is missing, the awarding of conviction will be against the principles of administration of criminal justice. Javed Iqbal v. Fayyaz Ahmed & another 2014 SCR 1441 (E) 2013 SCR 374 rel.
  22. Appreciation of — murder — conviction of — An accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided that such evidence is confidence inspiring and is based upon such pieces which form a chain of unbroken events and every link in the chain is connected with each other so that no link in the chain is missing — one end of the chain touches the dead body and the other to the neck of the accused and from such evidence no other inference except the guilt of the accused, is drawn — If any link is missing and chain of events is broken, then accused cannot be convicted on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. Javaid Akhtar v. M. Zubair  others 2015 SCR 533 (A) 1992 SCR 366, 2009 SCR 252 & 273, 2013 PSC (Crl) 732 & 2013 SCR 374 ref.
  23. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the pieces of evidence should have the unbroken chain of the events.  All the links in the chain should be fully connected and interlinked.  If any link of the chain is missing, then the whole case falls on the ground — Every link in such a case should be proved by cogent evidence, otherwise, no conviction to an accused can be awarded or maintained. Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, an accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence until the same is proved or incompatible with his innocence or incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. Zaffar Hussain Malik v. Abdul Salam & 5 others 2015 SCR 1090 (B) 1992 SCR 366 & 2013 SCR 192 rel.
  24.  Murder — in the cases of circumstantial evidence, the required standard of proof is quite different as compared to the cases of direct evidence — all the pieces of evidence must form a chain of events so that no link of the chain is missing — one end of the chain touches the accused, the other end of the chain touches the dead body — no other inference except the guilt of the accused. Abdul Majeed & 4 others v. Muhammad Latif & 3 others 2016 SCR 1306 (A) 2009 SCR 273 rel.
  25. Murder — unseen occurrence — It is celebrated principle of law that the circumstantial evidence is a weak type of evidence — The circumstantial evidence should be of such a nature and be in an unbroken chain of events which touches the accused on its one end and the deceased on its other end — The principal facts must be so proved that nothing else other than the guilt of the accused is proved — evidence should be of high standard. Basharat H. v. State  2016 SCR 1176 (E)
  26. Murder — the failure of one link breaks the chain, thus every link in circumstantial evidence must be proved — If any link is not proved then the conviction cannot be recorded because it is the basic duty of the prosecution to prove all the links of chain of circumstantial evidence — If any link of the chain is missing then the whole case of the prosecution falls on the ground like a sand castle. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (F) Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan and others, (Cri. Appeal No. 496 & 497 of 2009, decided on 15the October, 2015), un reported judgment Supreme Court of Pakistan, 2013, PSC (Cri) 732 and 2013 SCR 374 rel. 
  27. —appreciation of—all circumstances must be interlinked to award conviction—make a single un-broken chain—one end of chain must touch dead body and other to neck of accused—in cases of circumstantial evidence must be of the nature, where all circumstances must be inter-linked to make out a single unbroken chain, one end of which touches the dead body and the other to the neck of the accused. Any missing link in the chain would destroy the whole case and would render the same unreliable for recording a conviction on a capital charge. Rashid Hussain vs The State & another 2018 SCR 260 (A) 2009 SCR 432 ref
  28. —examination of circumstantial evidence—principle of— Courts are required to take extra care and caution— as there are chances of procuring and fabricating evidence. Rashid Hussain vs The State & another 2018 SCR 260 (B)
  29. —It is celebrated principle of law that conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence can be passed but such evidence should be free from doubt, confidence inspiring and based upon such pieces which form a chain of unbroken events. Muhammad Khalid & nother vs State & another 2018 SCR 356 (C) 2015 SCR 533, 2013 PSC Crl. 732 & 2011 SCMR 1233 rel
  30. —murder case—in the case of circumstantial evidence the evidence must be inter-linked to make out a single unbroken chain. Abdul Qayyum & others v. The State & others 2019 SCR 105 (A)
  31. —in the case of circumstantial evidence contradiction which creates a doubt in the prosecution story, cannot be ignored lightly. Abdul Qayyum & others v. The State & others 2019 SCR 105 (D)  
  32. —appreciation of—-circumstantial evidence—-blind murder—test for awarding conviction—unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence must be proved—-for conviction, reliance cannot be made upon statement of confession recorded by coaccused. Admittedly, it is a blind murder and the whole case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and under law every link of unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence must be proved and if any link is not proved then the conviction cannot be recorded. In the case in hand, no one was nominated in FIR and even after the occurrence no one from the complainant party ever disclosed that there was any enmity of the accused-respondent towards the deceased. The accused-respondent was implicated in the case on the alleged statement of co-accused recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 02.12.1989 and then after a lapse of three months’ period some close relatives of the deceased got recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein, they stated for the first time that few days ago from the occurrence hard words were exchanged between the accused-respondent and the deceased and the accused-respondent also extended the threats to do away with his life. It may be observed here that if any such episode was in the knowledge of the relatives of the deceased why they did not disclose the same immediately after the commission of offence as the same could be helpful in the investigation of the case. In this regard, nothing is available on record to make it clear that why the complainant party remained mum for a long time, which clearly indicates that the story has been invented later which makes the foundation of the case doubtful. Ammad Asghar v. Tahir Sarwar & 2 others 2019 SCR 886 (B)
  33. —capital punishment, awarding of—principle for—Held: Court had no quarrel with the proposition that for awarding the capital punishment in the case of circumstantial, all the facts established should be consistent with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and if any link is missing that will destroy the whole chain of such evidence and all the links of the circumstances must lead to the guild of the accused. By now it is well settled law that in case the circumstantial evidence should be so interconnected that it forms such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused by excluding all the hypothesis of his innocence. Nusrat Jan  v. The State & another 2020 SCR 630 (E)
  34. —Murder—conviction of—no doubt, the conviction can be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence in absence of direct evidence — even capital punishment can also be awarded, provided, that no link in the chain should be missing—all the circumstances must lead to the guilt of the accused—the circumstantial evidence can only form basis for conviction when it is incompatible with the innocence of accused or guilt of any other person and in no manner be incapable of explaining upon any reasonable hypotheses except that of guilt of accused— if no link in the chain found missing, the circumstantial evidence can safely be relied on and conviction can be recorded. Moeen Nasim v. The state & another  2022 SCR 855 (A) 2009 SCR 432 & 2013 SCR 374 ref.
  35.  — conviction on basis of — Murder — under law conviction can be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence in absence of direct evidence because a man can tell lie but the circumstances do not — conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence when it excludes all hypothesis of innocence and guilt of the accused is obvious — even death penalty can also be awarded in a murder cases founded on circumstantial evidence but it should be beyond any shadow of doubt. Tanvir Ahmed Bhatti v. State & others 2023 SCR 514 (F) 2014 SCR 893 & 2015 SCR 872 ref.
  36. — standard of — murder case — the evidence must be interlinked to make out a single unbroken chain — every chain of evidence must be linked with the other chain and corroborated by other evidence — in the cases of circumstantial evidence, the required standard of proof is quite different as compared to the cases of direct evidence. Tanvir Ahmed Bhatti v. State & others 2023 SCR 514 (A)
  37. — murder — conviction — standard of evidence — in cases of circumstantial evidence, the Courts have to take extraordinary care and caution — circumstantial evidence corroborated by defective and inadequate evidence, cannot be made basis for punishment — to justify the inference of guilt of an accused, the circumstantial evidence must be of a quality to be in compatible with the innocence of accused — if such circumstantial evidence is not of that standard, it would be highly dangerous to rely upon the same for awarding capital punishment — the better and safe course would be not to rely upon it in securing the ends of justice Muhamad Bashir & others versus Muhammad Naveed Abbas & others 2023 SCR 1152 (C) 2009 SCR 273 rel.
  38. — murder — conviction of — conviction can be recorded based on constitutional evidence in severe cases, such as those meriting death penalty, but the prosecution case must be proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt — all the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of accused and the chain of facts connecting the offence with the accused must be unbroken, indispensable and interweaved — the circumstantial evidence in a murder case should be such a well-knit chain that one end of which touches the body of deceased and the other neck of the accused. Muhammad Saeed versus The State & 12 others 2023 SCR 1006 (A)
  39. — murder — admissibility of circumstantial evidence — conviction of — in cases of circumstantial evidence, the Courts have to take extraordinary care and caution before relying on it — circumstantial evidence, if supported by defective or inadequate evidence, cannot be made basis for conviction on a capital charge — to justify the interference of guilt of an accused, the circumstantial evidence must be of a quality to be incompatible with the innocence of accused — if such circumstantial evidence is not of that standard and quality, it would be highly dangerous to rely upon the same — the better and safe course would be not to rely on it in securing the ends of justice. Muhammad Saeed versus The State & 12 others 2023 SCR 1006 (B) 1992 SCR 366, 2009 SCR 273 & 2009 SCR 432 ref.
  40. — murder case — conviction of — in case of circumstantial evidence, death sentence can be awarded, provided that such evidence is confidence inspiring and based upon pieces which form a chain of unbroken events and every link in the chain is connected with each other and no link in the chain is missing. Mst. Haleema Bibi versus Muhammad Nadim & others 2023 SCR 751(A)
  41. — murder — conviction of — no bar on recording conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, even death penalty can be awarded, but the prosecution case must be proved beyond the shadow of any doubt which is the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence — all facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused and the chain of facts connecting the offence with the accused, must be unbroken indispensable and interweaved — the circumstantial evidence in a murder case should be well-knit chain that one end of which touches the body of the deceased and the other neck of the accused Muhamad Bashir & others versus Muhammad Naveed Abbas & others 2023 SCR 1152 (B)
error: Content is protected !!