The Indian law on Evidence is detailed and provides an extensive understanding on the importance of evidence in Indian legal framework and also states the various forms of evidence that can be considered legally acceptable. Despite the presence of these laws, there has frequently been a question of ‘suspicion’ as a proof. In certain cases, a strong suspicion is considered to be a legal proof by the complainant and such cases go on in courts until the judges pronounce that suspicion is not a legal proof.

In the year 1991, in a remarkable case of Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa[1], the Supreme Court held as follows:

“The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain the conviction must satisfy three conditions;     

(i)             the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(ii)           those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused;

(iii)         the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused”

On a closer look at the inference held above by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the words “cogently and firmly established” form an essential part of the judgment. When we say that the circumstances need to be cogently and firmly established, we do not leave any space for suspicion.

Similarly, in the year 2019, taking the similar point of view into due consideration, the Supreme Court, in the case of Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh[2] held that strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot replace legal proof. The burden of proof always lies upon the prosecution and the prosecution cannot be excused from this responsibility merely because of a suspicion, however strong it must be.

In a recent scenario in February, 2022, the Bombay High Court set aside the order of conviction pronounced by the Sessions Court and acquitted a person sentenced for life imprisonment on the guilt of murder. The High Court deduced from the evidence submitted that prosecution’s case rested entirely upon the circumstantial evidence and there was no direct evidence in the case.[3] Hence, it is clearly understood that suspicion cannot take over legal proof and any person accused of an offence is to be considered as innocent at all cases unless ‘proven’ guilty and by ‘proof’ one must infer a legal proof which directly points towards the guilt of the accused and it must constitute such a chain of circumstances which cannot be broken by the defence.