top of page
Question Bank
Question
Explain the five essential conditions that must be fulfilled before a conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Solution
In criminal jurisprudence, when a case rests purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must satisfy five cardinal principles, often called the "Panchsheel" or five golden principles, to secure a conviction. First, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established—they "must be" and not merely "may be" proved. Second, the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be explainable on any other reasonable hypothesis. Third, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. Fourth, they must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved (i.e., the guilt of the accused). Fifth, 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, showing that in all human probability the act was done by the accused. These principles ensure that a conviction is based on legal certainty, not moral suspicion.
Question
Under what conditions are statements made by a deceased person admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, and how does Indian law differ from English law on this point?
Solution
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception to the hearsay rule. It makes admissible the statements—written or verbal—of a person who is dead, provided the statement relates to the cause of death or to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death, in cases where the cause of that person's death is in question. Indian law has made a distinct departure from English law. Unlike English law, which requires the declaration to be made under a sense of impending death, Indian law does not require the declarant to be under the expectation of death. Furthermore, the phrase "circumstances of the transaction" under Section 32(1) is interpreted broadly. The test of proximity is not applied too literally; it can encompass statements made before the cause of death arose, especially if the death is the logical culmination of a continuous drama. The section covers both homicide and suicide.
Question
Can a false explanation or defence put forward by an accused be used to strengthen the prosecution's case? If so, under what strict conditions?
Solution
A false defence or a false plea taken by an accused cannot, by itself, cure infirmities in the prosecution's case. The prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs. However, in certain limited situations, a false defence may be used as an additional link to lend assurance to the court, but only after the following essential conditions are satisfied: First, various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution must have been satisfactorily proved. Second, the circumstances must point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness. Third, the circumstance of the false defence must have proximity to the time and situation of the crime. It is vital to understand that a false defence cannot supply missing links in an otherwise incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence. Its use is permissible only to fortify an already complete chain, not to complete it.
Question
What is the consequence if a circumstance appearing in evidence against an accused is not put to him during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Solution
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to old Section 342) mandates that the court must question the accused personally to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him. This is a valuable right of the accused. A settled principle of criminal law is that any circumstance which is not put to the accused during this examination cannot be used against him for his conviction. The purpose is to ensure fairness and give the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain incriminating evidence. If the court fails to put a relevant circumstance to the accused, that circumstance must be completely excluded from consideration, as the accused is denied the chance to offer an explanation. This rule is fundamental to a just trial.
Question
What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove in a case alleging murder by the administration of poison?
Solution
In cases of murder by administering poison, the courts must scrutinize the evidence with extreme care. The prosecution must prove the following four critical circumstances: First, there must be a clear motive for the accused to administer poison to the deceased. Second, it must be established that the deceased died of the specific poison alleged to have been administered. Third, and crucially, the prosecution must prove that the accused was in possession of the said poison. This can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, but its proof is indispensable. Mere opportunity to administer poison is insufficient if possession is not established. Fourth, it must be shown that the accused had the opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. The failure to prove any of these ingredients, especially possession of the poison, is fatal to the prosecution's case.
bottom of page