Evidence means when in any matter the party to the lawsuit offers to prove or disprove on a particular issue in a particular case. Every person who knows about the word evidence distinct it as Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence. Direct Evidence is direct in nature and Circumstantial Evidence is indirect.
DIRECT EVIDENCE:
Direct Evidence” is evidence that establishes a particular fact without the need to make an inference to connect the evidence to the fact. It supports the truth of an argument directly, i.e., without the need for an intervening inference. It directly proves or disproves the fact. So Direct Evidence is real, tangible, or clear evidence of a fact or thing that requires no reasoning or consideration to prove its existence. It does not require any type of reasoning or assumption to conclude. Though Direct evidence is considered to be better as compared to Circumstantial evidence, one of the main drawbacks of Direct evidence is relying on the evidence completely without any thinking or reasoning to prove its existence. For example in the case of an eyewitness, he may lie or may not be able to understand if the event occurs quickly or at the time of high stress to the eyewitness. Also, it can happen that the eyewitness may wrongly testify or intentionally testifies wrongly. Though he may get prosecuted for perjury which means lying under an oath, that can happen only when the judge orders to counter examine the testification of the witness.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial Evidence is the evidence that does not point directly to the fact. Reasoning must be made or an inference, that links circumstantial evidence to the desired fact the party is trying to prove. For example In a case where nobody has seen who did the murder. Now the court or the judge has to reframe all the issues and connect them to find the desired fact. In this way, the judge uses reasoning and logic to conclude, unlike in, direct evidence where the judge or the jury relies on the words of the witness. In this type, any evidence has to be evaluated by cross-checking, for the reliability of the source. Nowadays, circumstantial evidence is given more significance than direct evidence, because more often in criminal law, direct evidence is misused and justice gets delayed. For instance, fingerprints are circumstantial evidence.
The most common form of direct evidence is “eyewitness testimony”, where the witness describes exactly the scenario that happened in the situation. For example – suppose a person who is looking out from his door and is seeing a person killing someone else. If he testifies this before the court then, it will be direct evidence because he saw the murder happening in front of his eyes and can identify the murderer. But suppose the person in the morning found a dead body lying on the road and now if he testifies then that testimony would not be direct because he does not have any direct proof of who is the murderer and how did it happen.
Now the important question that arises here is whether a person can be convicted on just circumstantial evidence solely? So the answer to this is, one can be convicted of murder or rape solely based on circumstantial evidence. But the reliability on public officials has to be made, and in turn, the work of public officials gets of immense responsibility. The onus on public officials is huge and they had to investigate properly, so that justice is rendered diligently, unlike in the Aarushi Talwar case where the parents were convicted, which led to improper justice.
BY- ARVIND PANDA
