When Crime Lacks Evidence: What Happens Next?

It is popularly said that if there is a crime, it would have left some evidence. I have come across this saying countless times across different media like movies, books, mainstream discussions around crime and the law, crime thrillers, crime fiction, the list goes on.

But on many occasions now something just felt starkly incomplete about this supposedly popular notion. I couldn’t help but ask myself: Is it necessary for there to always be a fire where there is smoke? 

What happens if there is no evidence? and what does our legislation say about it?

As per the Indian Evidence act of 1972, Sec. 101 states that - “ Whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the Burden of proof lies on that person.”

However, it is also true that as per Indian law a person can be convicted without any physical evidence and purely basis circumstantial evidence alone. 

Having said that, it is also fair to ponder over the idea that the very absence of evidence may not necessarily be the evidence of absence itself. A notion that is still much debated today with different sections of the general public opinion divided into opposing factions.

In 1959, an illustrious and patriotic navy commander, Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, was accused of allegedly murdering Prem Ahuja, his wife’s lover. Nanavati later went on to openly confess to the crime to the authorities and the public and yet was declared 'not guilty' of premeditated murder by a jury. A verdict that had to be later dismissed by the Bombay High Court. 

However, this was not the final lock on the verdict and the case saw a lot of back and forth. On March 11, 1960, the High Court found Nanavati guilty of killing Ahuja and sentenced him to life in prison. The sentence was suspended by the Governor of Bombay within hours.

The media impact and the subjective nature of public opinion served as a staunch influence to steering judicial verdicts eventually leading to the Indian legislation abolishing jury trials completely in the court of law.

While it is true that the concrete trail left by culprits guides law enforcement towards resolution. But what about circumstances when evidence is scarce or completely absent? Is the absence of proof also equivalent to the absence of truth itself?

Let's take a moment and think about the rather strange but curious instances that could puzzle detectives and attract the public's attention—unsolved mysteries in which clues vanish like a puff of temporary smoke in a strong wind. 

Take the historic case of O.J Simpson for instance. A man that was accused for murdering his wife and got away clean in the court of law, later going on to write a book called ‘what if I did it’

In such cases, it does not make any logical sense to say that the absence of any evidence rules out the possibility of a crime; rather, it could just highlight the limitations of our investigation tools and procedures itself. 

Despite breakthroughs in forensic science and technology, some crimes remain ambiguous, leaving both investigators and the public searching for explanations.

Furthermore, the idea that every crime leaves an imprint ignores the intricacies of criminal behaviour and human psychology.Think about it, perpetrators aren't restricted by a script; they are living and breathing human beings.

Of Course they can adapt, hide their traces, and take advantage of system weaknesses. 

Criminals may elude discovery by rigorous preparation or pure chance, creating a hole where evidence should exist. 

This reality calls into question the oversimplified narrative that equates proof with certainty.

So, in the lack of proof, 

What remedy do we have? 

How does the legal system traverse the ambiguous waters of uncertainty? 

Our legislation recognizes the inherent complexity of criminal investigations and includes means for dealing with situations in which evidence is absent.

The entire premise of innocent until proven guilty only goes on to further stress on the prosecution's burden of proof. In the absence of conclusive proof, the presumption of innocence applies, protecting people against unjust conviction. 

However, this concept emphasizes the need of conducting a comprehensive and meticulous inquiry to ensure that justice is delivered without regard for compromise.

Furthermore, legal systems use ideas like indirect evidence and witness testimony to compensate for the absence of direct proof. While circumstantial evidence cannot give conclusive proof of guilt, it can construct a compelling narrative that, when joined with other elements, leads to conviction. Similarly, while witness testimony is open to examination and interpretation, it can provide vital information about the circumstances surrounding a crime.

Nevertheless, the lack of proof presents substantial issues to the judicial system, raising concerns about responsibility, trustworthiness, and the elusive nature of truth. It underlines the need for ongoing innovation in forensic science and investigative tactics, providing law enforcement with the tools needed to negotiate the intricacies of modern crime.

In conclusion, while the phrase "if there was a crime, it would have left some evidence" is well-known in popular culture, its application in the actual world is significantly more subtle. 

The absence of evidence does not always imply the absence of truth; rather, it emphasizes the complexities of criminal investigations and the flaws inherent in our quest for justice. 

For instance, about as many as 7.5 lakh police cases are closed in India alone every year for an apparent ‘lack of evidence’, like in the case of human rights activist and lawyer Bela Bhatia, who had reported about an attack on her residence to the local police in Parpa village of Chhattisgarh’s Bastar district.  After a whole year, the authorities had decided to close the case for supposed lack of evidence. And Bela Bhatia’s story is just one of many. 

As we face unsolved riddles, we must remember that beyond the smoke is a reality that defies easy explanations—a reality that necessitates an unflinching dedication to the search of truth and the preservation of justice, even in the absence of proof.