Abstract:
In both criminal and civil proceedings, evidence plays a significant role in establishing guilt. In
courts of law, there are two basic forms of evidence, such as: direct evidence, which does not
require an inference to draw a conclusion from the evidence; and indirect evidence, also known
as circumstantial evidence, which requires an inference to draw a conclusion from the evidence.
Circumstantial evidence describes a situation in which a witness is unable to directly inform you
of a fact that must be established. Instead of providing direct facts, the witness provides evidence
of particular facts that can help the fact finder to reach a rational decision. In most cases, direct
evidence is inaccessible; hence, the prosecution would rely on circumstantial evidence. Public
opinion holds that circumstantial evidence is a weaker form of proof that bears less weight than
direct evidence. There is a fear that circumstantial evidence could result in an erroneous
conviction. This dissertation, therefore, tries to look into and understand the concept, scope, and
value of circumstantial evidence in a much more detailed way. It tries to learn about the history
of circumstantial evidence, look at what it takes to prove its worth in a dispute, and look at the
laws that apply to it.
Description:
This thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Law in East West University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
