Question Description
Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened, but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or deny liability.Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions that nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of ""purposely"" or ""knowingly,"" the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, where the principle was held that, “in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”Q. Body of B was found in the house of A. The onus is upon A to establish that even though the body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Is this true or false? a)True, as a body recovered from the house doesn’t mean that murder has happened in that house so it would be indirect evidence.b)False, as it will form a chain of direct evidence instead as the inmates of the house are direct eye-witnesses of the body being foundc)True, as the process of reasoning out the guilt of the inmates requires an entire situation to be put together making it an indirect evidence.d)Both (A) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened, but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or deny liability.Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions that nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of ""purposely"" or ""knowingly,"" the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, where the principle was held that, “in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”Q. Body of B was found in the house of A. The onus is upon A to establish that even though the body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Is this true or false? a)True, as a body recovered from the house doesn’t mean that murder has happened in that house so it would be indirect evidence.b)False, as it will form a chain of direct evidence instead as the inmates of the house are direct eye-witnesses of the body being foundc)True, as the process of reasoning out the guilt of the inmates requires an entire situation to be put together making it an indirect evidence.d)Both (A) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened, but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or deny liability.Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions that nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of ""purposely"" or ""knowingly,"" the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, where the principle was held that, “in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”Q. Body of B was found in the house of A. The onus is upon A to establish that even though the body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Is this true or false? a)True, as a body recovered from the house doesn’t mean that murder has happened in that house so it would be indirect evidence.b)False, as it will form a chain of direct evidence instead as the inmates of the house are direct eye-witnesses of the body being foundc)True, as the process of reasoning out the guilt of the inmates requires an entire situation to be put together making it an indirect evidence.d)Both (A) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened, but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or deny liability.Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions that nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of ""purposely"" or ""knowingly,"" the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, where the principle was held that, “in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”Q. Body of B was found in the house of A. The onus is upon A to establish that even though the body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Is this true or false? a)True, as a body recovered from the house doesn’t mean that murder has happened in that house so it would be indirect evidence.b)False, as it will form a chain of direct evidence instead as the inmates of the house are direct eye-witnesses of the body being foundc)True, as the process of reasoning out the guilt of the inmates requires an entire situation to be put together making it an indirect evidence.d)Both (A) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened, but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or deny liability.Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions that nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of ""purposely"" or ""knowingly,"" the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, where the principle was held that, “in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”Q. Body of B was found in the house of A. The onus is upon A to establish that even though the body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Is this true or false? a)True, as a body recovered from the house doesn’t mean that murder has happened in that house so it would be indirect evidence.b)False, as it will form a chain of direct evidence instead as the inmates of the house are direct eye-witnesses of the body being foundc)True, as the process of reasoning out the guilt of the inmates requires an entire situation to be put together making it an indirect evidence.d)Both (A) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened, but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or deny liability.Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions that nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of ""purposely"" or ""knowingly,"" the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, where the principle was held that, “in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”Q. Body of B was found in the house of A. The onus is upon A to establish that even though the body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Is this true or false? a)True, as a body recovered from the house doesn’t mean that murder has happened in that house so it would be indirect evidence.b)False, as it will form a chain of direct evidence instead as the inmates of the house are direct eye-witnesses of the body being foundc)True, as the process of reasoning out the guilt of the inmates requires an entire situation to be put together making it an indirect evidence.d)Both (A) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened, but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or deny liability.Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions that nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of ""purposely"" or ""knowingly,"" the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, where the principle was held that, “in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”Q. Body of B was found in the house of A. The onus is upon A to establish that even though the body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Is this true or false? a)True, as a body recovered from the house doesn’t mean that murder has happened in that house so it would be indirect evidence.b)False, as it will form a chain of direct evidence instead as the inmates of the house are direct eye-witnesses of the body being foundc)True, as the process of reasoning out the guilt of the inmates requires an entire situation to be put together making it an indirect evidence.d)Both (A) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened, but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or deny liability.Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions that nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of ""purposely"" or ""knowingly,"" the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, where the principle was held that, “in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”Q. Body of B was found in the house of A. The onus is upon A to establish that even though the body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Is this true or false? a)True, as a body recovered from the house doesn’t mean that murder has happened in that house so it would be indirect evidence.b)False, as it will form a chain of direct evidence instead as the inmates of the house are direct eye-witnesses of the body being foundc)True, as the process of reasoning out the guilt of the inmates requires an entire situation to be put together making it an indirect evidence.d)Both (A) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove. Circumstantial evidence is not considered to be proof that something happened, but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation. Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. They also play an important role in civil courts to establish or deny liability.Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions that nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of ""purposely"" or ""knowingly,"" the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence.Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, where the principle was held that, “in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”Q. Body of B was found in the house of A. The onus is upon A to establish that even though the body of the deceased was recovered from his house, his involvement in the crime is negligible. The inmates of the house are also required to provide an explanation. If the defendant fails to provide a viable explanation and fails to establish his innocence, this would form a chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the accused. Is this true or false? a)True, as a body recovered from the house doesn’t mean that murder has happened in that house so it would be indirect evidence.b)False, as it will form a chain of direct evidence instead as the inmates of the house are direct eye-witnesses of the body being foundc)True, as the process of reasoning out the guilt of the inmates requires an entire situation to be put together making it an indirect evidence.d)Both (A) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.