Wrongful Convictions: Beyond Circumstantial Evidence and Psychological Bias towards Direct Evidence

Abstract

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is the result of centuries of debate on how evidence should be evaluated in legal proceedings. While some scholars, like Gilbert, insisted on a strict hierarchy where direct evidence held more weight, others, like Bentham, argued that logic and context should guide its assessment. James Stephen, the Act’s drafter, took a middle path, focusing on relevancy without ranking different types of evidence. However, in practice, courts often favor direct evidence over circumstantial evidence, especially in criminal convictions, believing it to be more certain, while circumstantial evidence is seen as dealing with probabilities. This paper explores why this preference persists, even though neither the Act nor the Supreme Court explicitly endorses it. It argues that beyond legal principles, deeper judicial tendencies and structural factors influence how courts assess evidence and determine guilt.