Circumstantial Evidence in the Law of Evidence in Bangladesh: An Analysis of its Scope, Content, and Value

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.