Question

A sees B running away from a room and afterwards sees C lying down in a pool of blood in the same room. A's evidence in as afar as seeing B running away is direct but as far as the murder is concerned, it is a ----------

• A. Primary evidence
• B. Circumstantial evidence
• C. Real evidence
• D. Substantial evidence

Hint:

To differentiate between direct and circumstantial evidence, ask: "Does this evidence prove the main fact directly, or does it prove a surrounding fact from which the main fact can be inferred?" If it requires an inference, it is circumstantial.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question requires classifying a piece of evidence based on its relationship to the fact in issue. The fact in issue is whether B murdered C. We need to distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Direct Evidence: Evidence that, if believed, directly proves a fact in issue without the need for any inference. For example, if A had seen B stabbing C, A's testimony would be direct evidence of the murder.
- Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence of a relevant fact from which the fact in issue can be inferred. It does not directly prove the fact in issue but establishes circumstances that point towards it.
In this scenario:
- A did not see B killing C.
- A saw a circumstance: B running away from the room where C was found dead.
- This fact (B running away) does not directly prove the murder. However, it is a highly relevant fact from which a court might infer B's guilt (the conduct of an absconder).
Therefore, A's testimony about seeing B run away is circumstantial evidence with respect to the murder of C.
- Primary evidence relates to documents. Real evidence refers to material objects. Substantial evidence refers to the weight of evidence.
Step 3: Final Answer:
As far as the murder is concerned, the evidence is Circumstantial evidence.