Under Indian law, a person can be convicted purely on circumstantial evidence, even if nobody actually saw the crime happen. This means murder weapons, fingerprints, last-seen evidence, motive, and the conduct of the accused can be enough without eyewitnesses.
Circumstantial evidence works because of the combined effect of the initial Sections of Chapter 2 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court of India. But remember that no single set of Sections in the BSA is explicitly dedicated to “circumstantial evidence.” In fact, the word ‘circumstantial’ is found nowhere in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
If the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, logical, consistent, and points only to the guilt of the accused, then conviction is valid.
The Indian Supreme Court has held that circumstantial evidence must form a chain so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for innocence.
One of the landmark judgments on circumstantial evidence is Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622].
The Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence must satisfy the following five golden principles, often called the “Panchsheel of circumstantial evidence”:
- The circumstances must be fully established.
- The facts established must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
- The circumstances must be conclusive in nature.
- They must exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt.
- There must be a complete chain of evidence, leaving no reasonable ground for innocence.
Many murder convictions in India have been based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Some popular cases are:
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622]
- Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343]
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681]
- State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [(2006) 12 SCC 254]
- Bodhraj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [(2002) 8 SCC 45]
- Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 801]
Related: Statement of Eye Witness or Opinion of Doctor? What Matters More in a Rape Case?
- Section 34 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) - 18th February 2026
- Section 35 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) - 18th February 2026
- Section 36 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) - 18th February 2026
