Abstract: Based on the requirements of evidence-based adjudication and the human nature of seeking benefits and avoiding harm, spoliation of evidence frequently occurs in the context of adversarial litigation. Both civil and administrative litigation in China contain provisions regulating spoliation of evidence, while criminal litigation pays less attention to this issue. This stems from widespread trust in prosecutors’ fulfillment of their objective duties, an unwavering pursuit of factual truth, and the incomplete establishment of criminal trial authority. Spoliation of evidence in criminal proceedings allows the party with evidence to unfairly occupy a favorable position in the trial by utilizing its resource advantages, violating the principle of equality between prosecution and defense. If adjudicators simply rely on the burden of proof to make a judgment when proof is difficult or impossible, it may disadvantage the obstructed party and undermine judicial fairness. To uphold procedural fairness and avoid factual impediments caused by spoliation of evidence, it is necessary to introduce and refine the theory of spoliation of evidence in criminal litigation. The legal norms in U.S. law imposing adverse consequences on parties committing the spoliation of evidence also provide comparative legal references. In practical implementation, the legitimacy of the spoliation of evidence and the importance of the spoliated evidence should be considered. Adverse inferences can be drawn using rules of thumb to form the judge’s inner conviction. Provisions such as Article 73 of the Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law have already provided foundational principles for adjudication in this regard.