File Name: direct and circumstantial evidence .zip
Evidence can be broadly divided into two sub- categories, direct and indirect circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence which explicitly establishes a fact or proves any assertions made by the party.
Direct evidence does not require supplementation and does not require interference to form a connection between various facts. Illustration : A saw B shoot C in a park, subsequently C died. A is an eye witness of murder being committed. A being an eye witness to a crime would amount to direct evidence. In India, the term circumstantial evidence was first used by Sir James Stephen, stating circumstantial evidence to be facts that are relevant to the other fact, whose existence can prove by the existence of other fact.
Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence, is an unrelated chain of events which when put together formulates circumstances leading to the commission of the crime and can be used to derive a conclusion.
Circumstantial evidence is supported by a significant amount of corroboration. Convictions if based on circumstantial evidence require an unbreakable link between the criminal and the crime. An example of circumstantial evidence would be, if police retrieves stolen goods from the house of a suspect, although it establishes that the suspect has stolen the good but does not necessarily establish guilty or the fact that he must have stolen the goods.
Recovery of goods in the house of a suspect is a circumstantial evidence as the goods might be placed there by someone else, thus not establishing complete guilt but forming a chain of events.
This would shift the burden of proof on the suspect to establish his innocence. In the case of Holland v. United States , the US Supreme Court concluded, that fundamentally there is no intrinsic difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In the case of Ashok Kumar v.
State of Madhya Pradesh , [vii] the Supreme Court held that for circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction, the chain of events should be complete and should establish the guilt of the accused without probability of any other alternative. Further, the evidence should be cogently and firmly established. Circumstantial evidence can be sole basis for a conviction, if circumstances establish the chain of events leading to the guilt of the accused and commission of the crime without other possibilities.
State Nct Of Delhi , [xiii] the court awarded him life imprisonment for the murder of Jessica Lal, on the grounds of circumstantial evidence. The conduct of the accused after the incident absconding , ballistic report, presence at the scene of crime established by various testimonies and the circumstantial evidence connecting the vehicle and the cartridges during the commission of crime formed a chain of impenetrable evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
There is no inherent requirement to provide proof of motive, if the link between the accused and commission of the offence cannot be broken, it is immaterial to establish motive.
Section of the Indian Evidence Act, [xix] which states when a fact is within the knowledge of a person, the burden is upon him to establish his innocence. Illustration — Body of B was found in the house of A.
The onus is upon A to establish that even know body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused.
Further, the body of the deceased was found in the river which was within the knowledge of the accused. Conduct of the accused plays a vital role in corroborating or establishing circumstantial evidence.
Conduct of the accused which is unnatural and abnormal, such as absconding, inability to provide explanation, inability to disclose location during the commission of offence, providing false alibis, secretive cremation of death body, [xxii] which destroys the presumption of innocence is a relevant factor in establishing guilt and building the chain of events. Illustration — After the murder of B, the prime accused C went out of the state and subsequently disappeared to avoid arrest. The conduct of C is inconsistent with the conduct of an innocent man.
Thus, increasing the presumption of guilt. The conduct of the in-laws and the husband if established as cruel and inhumane, the circumstances surrounding the suicide of the deceased can lead to conviction.
In the case where, the in-laws constantly ill-treated the daughter —in-law and the husband was extremely abusive towards her, till the point she committed suicide. The circumstances prompting her to commit suicide, when established lead to the conviction of the accused. Circumstantial Evidence also understood as indirect evidence cannot be assumed to be inferior to direct evidence.
If the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled, conviction can be solely based on circumstantial evidence without direct evidence. Circumstantial requires a certain level of corroboration which can be established through the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstance. The onus is upon the judiciary to critically analyze the evidence. Circumstantial Evidence is applied both in civil and criminal matters, however primarily in criminal matters.
That in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.
If the chain is broken, none of the other circumstances can be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused. Opinion of an expert, handwriting, finger print, DNA test analysis, witness, discovery of an object connecting to the offence among others are used as corroboration.
Judiciary has not given any conclusive answer to this question both the evidences, if they fulfill their respective said conditions are considered strong evidences capable of leading to conviction, however in circumstantial evidence the precautions taken by the prosecution and the Judges is higher.
United States, , U. Chenga Reddy v. State of A. P, 10 SCC State, , 4 SCC Satish, 3 SCC State, , 9 SCC State of W. State of Bihar, 4 SCC Sign in. Log into your account. Forgot your password?
Dying Declaration. Stay Connected. How to start company in India? Modified date: October 3, What to do if a government official asks for a bribe? Modified date: October 12, Difference between Review and Appeal Modified date: March 8, What are the laws in India against adulteration of food?
Modified date: February 24, Call us at- Contact us: vedantayadav lawtimesjournal. Contract of Bailment and Pledge Modified date: December 23, Modified date: April 2,
Skip to content. Public Education. The heart of the case is the presentation of evidence. There are two types of evidence -- direct and circumstantial. Both kinds of evidence are a part of most trials, with circumstantial evidence probably being used more often than direct. Either kind of evidence can be offered in oral testimony of witnesses or physical exhibits, including fingerprints, test results, and documents.
Page last updated October Direct and Circumstantial Evidence: Defined. Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by a. Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. Circumstantial evidence also may be called indirect evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.
Circumstantial evidence , in law , evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is telling the truth. If, however, the witness is able to testify only that he heard the shot and that he arrived on the scene seconds later to see the accused standing over the corpse with a smoking pistol in his hand, the evidence is circumstantial; the accused may have been shooting at the escaping killer or merely have been a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer had dropped it.
Провал. Мысль о том, что придется отстоять в очереди несколько часов, была невыносима. Время идет, старик канадец может куда-нибудь исчезнуть. Вполне вероятно, он решит поскорее вернуться в Канаду. Или надумает продать кольцо.
Нам нужно поговорить. Если Грег Хейл ворвется… - Он не закончил фразу.
Шестнадцать часов. Но это не все, сэр. Я запустил антивирус, и он показывает нечто очень странное. - Неужели? - Стратмор по-прежнему оставался невозмутим.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *