Abstract

The paper titled ‘A study of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence with special reference to the Aarushi Talwar case’ gives the insights of the meaning an application of the direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence which is also known as indirect evidence. Direct evidence can be considered as the testimony that goes directly to any particular point of question and proves that if that is assumed without any kind of deductive logic or inference. For example an eye witness of a murder can be considered as direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence refers to a situation when a witness cannot inform you directly of the fact, the fact that has to be proven. Instead of giving any direct information the witness gives some proofs of certain facts which can help to drive the fact finder on the basis of some rational conclusion. This can help to prove the claim that is supposed to be proven. The objective of the research paper is to analyze the different aspects of the direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence and to check how in different cases they evidences are applied to arrive at the conclusion of the case and the conviction of the accused. The paper also focuses on the Aarushi Talwar case which is a landmark case in which the conviction happened on the basis of the circumstantial evidences in the absence of the direct evidence. The paper also discusses in what conditions if there is an absence of any direct evidence and only circumstantial evidences are available in relation to the case the conviction can be done based on circumstantial evidences solely. In the conclusion the paper states that direct evidence and the circumstances are applied by the courts according to the facts and the circumstances of each case.

Keywords