Every judiciary aspirant has studied the law relating to murder. We know the ingredients of murder, the relevant provisions, and the punishment prescribed under the law. But when a question is framed around a murder case, the examiner is not merely interested in knowing whether we can reproduce the statutory provisions. Especially, in criminal cases, evidence cannot be presented just like that, it must have a direct corroboration. Every circumstance should connect with the other, and the entire chain should leads towards something that the accused has committed the offence and it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Lets try to understand with a situation:
1. Start with the facts of the case
Suppose Ram approaches the court and says that his brother has been murdered. Ram is certain that Shyam is the person who murdered his brother.
Now, Ram wants to establish before the court that Shyam committed the murder.
But how will he do so?
The victim is no longer alive to narrate what happened. There may be no eyewitness who saw Shyam committing the murder. In such a situation, the prosecution may have to rely upon circumstantial evidence.
The important question for a judiciary aspirant is:
How do we connect Shyam with the murder through the evidence available before the court?
This is where the proper presentation of evidence becomes important.
2. Establish the relationship between the accused and the victim
The first thing that a judiciary aspirant should examine is the relationship between the accused and the victim.
Was Shyam known to Ram's brother? Did they have any previous disputes? Was there any motive for the commission of the offence?
For example, if Shyam and Ram's brother had a financial dispute, a property dispute, or some other disagreement, the prosecution may rely upon that circumstance to establish a possible motive.
However, remember that motive is a relevant circumstance, but motive alone is not sufficient to establish guilt.
The existence of a dispute does not automatically mean that Shyam committed the murder. The prosecution must establish other circumstances connecting Shyam with the offence.
In an examination answer, the student should explain:
• Whether there was a motive for the commission of the offence.
• Whether the motive is supported by evidence.
• Whether the motive, along with other circumstances, helps establish the prosecution's case.
3. Examine the last seen theory
The next important circumstance is the last seen theory.
If a witness states that accused and deceased were seen together shortly before the murder took place.
This is very important for evidence: When they were seen together and what happened?
The prosecution in this case may attempt to establish that the accused and the deceased were last seen together in circumstances that make the accused's involvement in the case relevant.
But this theory must be approached carefully.
The court must also consider:
• How much time elapsed between their being seen together and the discovery of the deceased's body?
• Was there an opportunity for another person to commit the offence?
• Are there other circumstances that connect the accused with the murder?
For instance, if Shyam and the deceased were seen together several hours before the death, and there is no evidence explaining what happened during that intervening period, the prosecution cannot simply assume that Shyam committed the murder.
4. Understand the importance of a confession and a discovery statement
The next important aspect is the confession.
A judiciary aspirant must be particularly careful while discussing a confession made before the police.
A confession given to a police officer is generally not admissible against the accused, and a confession made while in police custody is also generally not admissible unless made in the immediate presence of a judicial Magistrate, subject to the statutory provisions provided.
However, then comes in picture Section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act that provides an important exception Regarding the information received from an accused while the accused is in police custody, to the extent that the information directly relates to a fact thereby discovered.
Let us try to understand this:
Suppose Shyam is in police custody, and at the time of investigation, he tells the police:
"I have hidden the weapon under a tree and I know were exactly it is."
The police follow the information and recover a weapon from that location.
Now, the entire statement made by Shyam to the police does not become admissible merely because the weapon has been recovered.
Only that portion of the information which distinctly relates to the fact discovered may be proved under Section 27.
The prosecution may rely upon the discovery of the weapon as a relevant circumstance. However, a relevant connection must be established between the recovered weapon and the murder.
For example : Was the weapon actually at the same place? Was the recovery of the evidence documented? Is there forensic evidence that connects the weapon with the offence?
The mere recovery of a weapon does not automatically establish that Shyam committed the murder.
A student should therefore distinguish between a confession and a discovery statement. The statement made to the police is not admissible in its entirety simply because it leads to the discovery of a fact.
5.There should be a chain of circumstantial evidence
In a murder case it is imperative that prosecution must establish chain of circumstantial evidence.
For example: Accused and the deceased had a dispute and accused was seen with the deceased shortly before the murder then accused gave information that led to the recovery of a weapon. The Forensic evidence connects the recovered weapon with the murder.
Every circumstance must be examined individually and separately, but at the same time the court must also consider the evidence as a whole.
The student while writing the answer must also demonstrate that how each circumstance connects with the next circumstance and this how the principle of the chain of circumstantial evidence becomes important. The chain must also be very strong to exclude all other reasonable alternative which can be consistent with the innocence of the accused.
6. The principle of res gestae
Another important concept that a judiciary aspirant may encounter is res gestae.
The principle relates to facts that are so connected with a fact in issue or relevant fact as to form part of the same transaction.
Res gestae is about the connection between facts forming part of the same transaction, not merely about one event following another.
7. The reliability of witnesses
Another important factor which is to be considered is Witness testimony.
Suppose an eye witness claims that he has seen the murder. The court should examine the reliability of such eye witness.
The relevant questions include:
• Was the witness actually present at the scene?
• Could the witness have seen the occurrence clearly?
• Is the testimony of the witness is consistent with the other evidence that are there on the record?
The court must examine the quality of the testimony of witness and not the quantity. In an answer, a judiciary aspirant should avoid simply stating that a witness is interested and therefore unreliable. The reasons for questioning the reliability of the testimony must be explained.
8. Apply the theory of: Beyond reasonable doubt
The most important aspect in any criminal law answer is the standard of proof. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Suppose the prosecution establishes that accused had a dispute with the deceased and later on the accused was seen with him shortly before the murder, and then gave the statement where murder weapon was discovered.
But suppose the forensic evidence does not connect the weapon with the murder, and the prosecution cannot establish what happened during the intervening period.
In such a situation, the court must consider whether the circumstances form a complete chain.
If a reasonable alternative explanation remains consistent with the innocence of Shyam, the benefit of that reasonable doubt must go to the accused.
The prosecution cannot ask the court to convict merely because Shyam appears suspicious.
Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
9. How should a judiciary aspirant write the answer?
Whenever you encounter a murder question that requires an appreciation of evidence, do not begin by reproducing every provision of the Evidence Act.
Instead, follow a logical sequence:
| Step | What to examine |
|---|---|
| Motive | Was there a reason for the accused to commit the offence? |
| Last seen | Were the accused and the deceased seen together in relevant circumstances? |
| Witnesses | Is the testimony reliable and consistent? |
| Confession and discovery | Is any statement admissible, and what fact was discovered? |
| Forensic evidence | Does scientific evidence connect the accused with the crime? |
| Circumstantial chain | Do all the circumstances form a complete chain? |
| Standard of proof | Has guilt been established beyond reasonable doubt? |
This sequence will help you develop a structured answer rather than presenting disconnected facts.
Remember, these are not mandatory ingredients of every murder case. The evidence that is relevant will depend upon the facts of the particular question. A murder case may involve direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both.
Conclusion
In a murder case, the real challenge is not merely to identify the offence but to establish how the evidence connects the accused with the commission of that offence.
A judiciary aspirant must learn to present evidence in a logical flow. Motive, last seen evidence, witness testimony, discovery statements, forensic evidence, and other relevant circumstances must be examined carefully and then only a well structured answer should be written.
The ultimate question is whether the prosecution has established a complete and reliable case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
At Maansarovar Law Centre, we encourage judiciary aspirants to approach criminal law questions not merely as questions of statutory knowledge, but as questions requiring a clear understanding of how evidence is appreciated and applied.
Because in criminal law, knowing the provision is important, but knowing how to connect the evidence is what makes your answer stand out.