Supreme Court: Statement Of Accused U/S S. 313 of CrPC cannot Be Used To Complete An Unestablished Chain Of Circumstances

 On an overall consideration of all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, we find that the evidence led by the prosecution is woefully short of pointing to the guilt of the appellant. The witnesses examined were not sure as to whether the appellant was last seen with the victim as they had their own doubts in that regard. The discovery effected under Section 27 of the Act of 1872 was from a place that was ordinarily visible to others, thus, requiring such discovery to be considered with caution. The DNA report in clear terms refers to the bone extracts being of male origin while the victim was a female. The said bones naturally did not match with the blood samples of the victim’s mother and sister. The report from the FSL also does not take the case of the prosecution any further. There is a doubt created as to whether the brown shawl claimed by the prosecution to be brought by the appellant from his mother was the same as the appellant’s mother had denied that it belonged to her. Therefore, the appellant’s statement under Section 313 of the Code cannot be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. In other words, the chain of circumstances has not been formed on the basis of the prosecution evidence. The Sessions Court, in our view, failed to notice these material factors that were very much available on record. It, therefore, erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence.  {Para 10}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.107 OF 2018

SANTOSH GURUNG Vs STATE OF SIKKIM 

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

Dated: OCTOBER 1, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1073.

Print Page

Supreme Court explains how unproven Presence of accused on crime site Snaps the Chain of Circumstantial Evidence into "Slender Titbits" of Mere Suspicion

The up-shot of the matter is that Shrinarayan Sharma did not tell the police that he called out the appellant or that the appellant replied that he will not open the door. Secondly, Renukabai did not tell her husband Ramrao that when she entered the house of the appellant and found the dead body of Sunita in the bathroom, the appellant was present in the house. Thirdly, none of the large group of persons who were present in the house of Ramrao disclosed, what was certainly the most significant circumstance, that the appellant was sleeping in the court-yard while the dead body was lying in the bathroom of his house. Finally, no attempt was made immediately after the FIR was lodged to have the appellant arrested and there is no evidence on the point as to who arrested him, from where, and in what circumstances. {Para 25}

26. As we have stated earlier, the crucial link in the chain of circumstances is the presence of the appellant in his house at the time when the dead body of Sunita was discovered. Once that link snaps, the entire case would have to rest on slender tit-bits here and there. This discussion disposes of the second part of the 4th circumstance part of the 5th circumstance and circumstances (6) and (7).

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 1980

Decided On: 17.12.1980

Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., Baharul Islam and A.P. Sen, JJ.

Author:Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.

Citation: 1980 INSC 237,MANU/SC/0211/1980.

Print Page

Beyond the Panchnama: Untangling Seizure, Recovery and Discovery Under the BNSS and BSA

 A practitioner's guide to three words that are often used interchangeably in FIRs, charge-sheets and judgments — but which carry three distinct legal consequences.

Few triads in criminal law are as loosely used, and as consequential when misunderstood, as seizure, recovery and discovery. Investigating officers write them almost as synonyms in case diaries and seizure memos. Yet each term occupies a separate compartment in the evidentiary architecture, and conflating them can weaken an otherwise sound prosecution — or, conversely, let a defective one slip through unchallenged. With the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) now governing procedure and evidence, and with the new mandate of audio-video recording of searches, it is worth revisiting these concepts with precision — and with reference to how courts in 2026 have already begun applying them.

Three Words, Three Legal Consequences

Print Page

What are five golden principles for proving case against accused based on circumstantial evidence?

A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0167/1973 : 1973CriLJ1783 where the following observations were made:

certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict, and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

153. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved...

it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1983

Decided On: 17.07.1984

 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Print Page

Whether accused can be convicted on basis of his statement U/S 313 of CRPC?

Insofar as contention taking the statement of first accused recorded Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, as an evidence it was submitted that the statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be taken as an incriminating evidence against the accused. of course, the High Court in extenso referred to the statements of the first accused put to him in his cross-examination Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and observed as under:

A-1 did not utter a single word to assail that the market rate of DPC at Shillong at the relevant time was ranging from Rs. 5/- to Rs. 10/-. All that he said was that he was not aware of the market rate of a DPC at that time or that Rs. 42.75 was accepted and approved rate of DPC. These evasive replies, taken together with evidence of PW-6 and PW-13 and item No. 7(17) of Ext. P-5, complete the link in the chain of circumstances against A-1.

After so observing, the High Court held that those evasive replies Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure taken together with the evidence complete the link in the chain of circumstances against A-1.

21. Where the accused gives evasive answers in his cross-examination Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. But such inference cannot be a substitute for the evidence which the prosecution must adduce to bring home the offence of the accused. The statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not an evidence. In Bishnu Prasad Sinha & Anr. Vs. State of Assam, MANU/SC/7022/2007 : (2007) 11 SCC 467, this Court held that conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on his statement recorded Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure which cannot be regarded as evidence. It is only the stand or version of the accused by way of explanation explaining the incriminating evidence/circumstances appearing against him. The statement made in defence by the accused Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to other evidence led by the prosecution. Statements made Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure must be considered not in isolation but in conjunction with the other prosecution evidence.

22. In the present case, it is not as if the High Court arrived at the conclusion and based conviction only on the statement made by the first accused Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. As seen from the reasonings of the High Court extracted above, the statement of first accused Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was taken with the evidences of PW-6 and PW-13 and items 7(17) of Ext. P5 as a link to complete the chain of circumstances against A-1. As elaborated earlier, the answers given by the first accused were considered not in isolation but in conjunction with other oral and documentary evidence. We find no substance in the contention that the High Court erred in taking the statement of first accused Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure as a link to complete the chain of circumstances.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2056 of 2014 

Decided On: 16.09.2014

 Edmund S. Lyngdoh Vs. State of Meghalaya

Print Page