Court trials are exciting when it comes to proof and judgements. The advocacy team has a lot of work to do when it comes to proving their stand.
A lot of investigation shall be done to prove their point in front of the jury or the judge. The investigation is carried out to collect pieces of evidence.
It need not be a certain court trial too, a piece of evidence is required to prove any business or personal views too. There are highly objective pieces of evidence which carries more value than the subjective evidence.
In terms of evidence, it comes in many forms. There are in fact, two types of evidence that can be admitted. One is the Direct evidence and the other is the circumstantial evidence.
Both the shreds of evidence carries equal weightage in front of the court in the way it is proved. Both direct and circumstantial evidence stands apart or stays together based on the situation it falls.
Direct vs Circumstantial Evidence
The main difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that direct evidence is the evidence that stands alone that directly proves a fact while circumstantial evidence is the one that is derived from a particular fact connecting logically reasoned thoughts.
Comparison Table Between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (in Tabular Form)
| Parameter of Comparison | Direct Evidence | Circumstantial Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Fundamental Difference | Direct evidence is stand-alone evidence which proves the fact directly without any intervention. | Circumstantial evidence is an inference out of a fact which is connected to logical reasoning. |
| Probative Value | Direct evidence does not require any second verification. It stands alone to prove the point and can be considered the final evidence for any judgement. | Circumstantial evidence requires many add-ons to prove the inference. It does not hold any direct fact to the point of discussion. The probative value is less when compared to direct evidence. |
| Facts and Observations | Direct evidence is highly objective. It either proves or disproves a point directly. | Circumstantial evidence is subjective and it does not prove or disprove anything directly. It may or may not have occurred based on the situation. |
| Evidence – Mode | Eye Witness is the primary mode of observation which points out o the fact directly. | Circumstantial evidence can be many, confession of an occurrence supporting the fact, forensic lab report of availability of a fingerprint, aftermath observation and confession of a certain occurrence which connects to the fact. |
| Level of Truth | Direct evidence is the highest form of evidence which has the highest level of truth about the incident. | Circumstantial evidence gives approximate levels of proof thus has less level of truth involved in the judgement. |
What is Direct Evidence?
The direct evidence is the type of evidence which stands alone to prove the fact directly without any intervention of facts and figures. An eye witness is considered the highest form of direct evidence in the court of law.
The probative value of direct evidence is high and it thus can be used to come to the judgement of a fact. It can prove or disprove a certain fact directly.
Direct evidence is objective and no need for further investigation on it. The evidence completely relies on a particular person or an object to conclude.
Direct evidence is the point-blank happening of an incidence which is witnessed by someone or something to prove or disprove the point in question.
Examples of direct pieces of evidence apart from eye witness are, Security camera footage, An audio recording of a criminal committing a crime. The court validates a piece of direct evidence higher than any type of evidence.
The biggest advantage of direct evidence is, the argument need not prolong for a long time as it provides a direct witness of a happening. The disadvantage of direct evidence is relying only on that to conclude.
Direct evidence is an accurate form of evidence which does not need any cross verification. It is an absolute fact which is formidable.
What is Circumstantial Evidence?
Circumstantial evidence is a form of evidence which proves a fact with multiple observations and inferences. It is arrived by observing a situation or fact to manipulate the occurrence of an event.
Circumstantial evidence completely relies on the inference of the fact observed. It is connected to the logic which determines the result.
Circumstantial evidence requires multiple support to prove a point. different pieces of circumstantial evidence are required.
There may be multiple explanations required and if one explanation is nullified, the other can still support the cause.
There is always an element of doubt in circumstantial evidence. Indeed, the reasonable amount of doubt on a situation is more than enough to convict someone.
Forensic evidence is considered to be circumstantial evidence unless it is directly involved in the crime scenes weapon or the object. Circumstantial evidence is most important where direct evidence is not available at all.
This type of evidence requires a lot of imagination to put substance over matter. This can be subjective too, but with relevant pieces of evidence can stand very formidable to prove or disprove anything.
Circumstantial evidence is mostly used in criminal cases, however, civil cases also encourage such evidence.
Main Differences Between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
- Both the evidence has equal value in a court of law, however their many differences between the two. The main difference between Direct evidence and Circumstantial evidence is, the direct evidence is stand-alone evidence which directly proves the fact while circumstantial evidence is the inference of a particular observation which can help prove a point. Such evidence is also called as Indirect evidence.
- The probative value of direct evidence is always more when compared to circumstantial evidence.
- Direct evidence is highly objective and it proves or disproves facts directly without any intervention while circumstantial evidence requires a lot of logic and explanation behind to stand the point.
- Direct evidence can end the case in just one shot as it directly proves or disproves facts. But, circumstantial evidence requires a lot of justification and multiple standpoints to prove or disprove a fact.
- Direct evidence is the highest form of truth to be justified while circumstantial evidence may not be the truth but an aide to the judgement.
Conclusion
It is required of both the shred of evidence to conclude. The direct evidence has weightage over circumstantial evidence but if the direct evidence is manipulated, then the justice is wrong. The same for circumstantial evidence can also be manipulated to stand a point.
But when it comes to justice, it is always acceptable to see multiple viewpoints and thorough analysis of occurrences. There are loopholes in both the types, but the truth prevails only through rigorous investigation.
In front of the law, the proof has to match logic or the proof must be tangible. Many criminal cases have been solved using these types of evidence.
References
- https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1486&context=mlr
- https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Tiersma.pdf
- https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=sportslaw