Direct Vs Circumstantial Evidence Essay

1522 Words7 Pages
Conspiracy can be proved either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by both. Though to establish the charge of conspiracy there must be an agreement, there need not be proof of direct meeting or combination, nor need the parties be brought into each other’s presence; the agreement be inferred from the circumstances raising a presumption of a common concerted plan to carry out the unlawful design.
'Confessions'-which is a terminology used in criminal law is a species of 'admissions' as defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. An admission is a statement-oral or documentary which enables the court to draw an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is trite to say that every confession must necessarily be an admission,
…show more content…
Lack of better evidence than acts and statements including that of co-conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy requires appreciation of circumstantial evidence following the well established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused person's conviction if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt...But in applying this principle, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other...When it is held that a certain fact is proved, the question arises whether that fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the problem the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his
Open Document