Admissibility of circumstantial evidence for theft
I went to store to purchase some item.Some stranger was standing next to me at store. Next day when I went to the same store that random stranger is blaming me for pickpocketing his mobile saying I was the only one standing next to him. He doesn't have any direct evidence nor any eyewitness. My question is what all evidence will be required in absence of direct evidence to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt and to get me convicted. Please list all the evidence required by him to prove theft.
As explained by you, the person is blaming you for theft. Since it is a shop and it is very common now a days that each and every shopkeeper have the cameras installed at the business premises. If you are innocent, you can use the camera footage in your favour to prove your innocence, However, it can also be used by the shopkeeper to prove your guilt, if you have committed theft. It is advisable to have a detailed discussion of your case. Feel free to contact on nine five eight two six eight one two nine one. Thanks & Regards.
In this case, as if there are no eyewitnesses available or direct evidence then basically the burden will be on the party to prove that you have stolen it as in this case if you were standing behind him if says in the court then he has to prove that also. Now, in case if he proves that then you have the option by providing the CCTV footage if it is available to you otherwise then also you cannot be accused based on merely you were standing behind him.
Book a phone consultation with a top-rated lawyer on Lawfarm.