169. Knowledge Spectrum – Discipline – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE 86.
263. What is circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence is the opposite of direct evidence. When no eyewitness is available, issues can be decided based on circumstantial evidence.
264. What are the rules regarding circumstantial evidence?
Tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 343, 1953 CriLJ 129, 1952 1 SCR) is applied in the matter of evaluation of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. This has been reiterated in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra (1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88) in the following terms:
"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(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.
These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
In quasi-judicial proceedings, relaxed norms are applied based on the principle of pre-ponderance of probability rather than conclusive nature of evidence and excluding every other hypothesis.
265. Can a charged officer be acquitted of the charges even without putting up any defence at all?
The charge leveled by the Disciplinary authority needs to be proved by leading evidence on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. Charged officer has no duty to prove his innocence. Hence the charged officer can be acquitted based on the failure of the Presenting officer to establish that the charges have been proved.
266. What is the concept of burden of proof?
General rule is that one who wants the court (or the Inquiring Authority) to believe something, must lead evidence to establish the fact. This is known as the burden of proof.
If the disciplinary authority has leveled the charge that an employee had left the office before closing hours and without taking permission, evidence must be led on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority to establish the same. If the defence of the Charged Officer contends that that he/she had taken permission to leave early, he/she must lead evidence to establish this fact. If the stand of the Disciplinary Authority is that the officer from whom the Charged Officer claims to have taken permission is not competent to grant permission, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to lead evidence in support of this fact.
Post a Comment