What is circumstantial evidence? What are the tests to qualify for a circumstantial evidence?

Circumstantial Evidence There is no difference between circumstantial evidence and indirect evidence. Circumstantial Evidence attempts to prove the facts in issue by providing other facts and affords an instance as to its existence. It is that which relates to a series of other facts than the fact in issue but by experience have been found so associated with the fact in issue in relation of cause and effect that it leads to a satisfactory conclusion. According to Justice Fetcher Monten the acceptance of evidence and there appreciation thereof is not a rigid mathematical formula and hence the circumstantial evidence qualifies a significant role in any matter before the court to make it possible that the court should reach to truth, reality and actual happenings of the things. According to Justice Stetson, circumstantial evidence is like a light in the dark which slowly touches all corners of a matter and bring the reality in front of the adjudicator. He further observes that circumstantial evidence has to be appreciated with utmost caution because if light is strong enough to remove all darkness, then it will uplift the justice in the matter but if the light is weak and removes darkness from some part of the matter it may result into grave injustice to both the parties. In modern times, circumstantial evidence is given importance. It is seen as evidence which relates to the series of the facts other than the fact in issue. Circumstantial evidence assumes importance in both categories when either direct evidence is lacking or the direct evidence is not conclusive of the fact in issue. In State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal Supreme Court had taken a strong stand while redefining and reframing the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence. Court said that circumstantial evidence. Court said that circumstantial evidence will be treated as a good piece of evidence if it qualifies the following tests: The circumstances from which guilt is established must create a series of circumstances and must be fully proved. The circumstances must be of conclusive nature and tendency. Circumstantial evidence must not need any reasonable doubt regarding existence of fact. It should create the hypothesis of guilt in such a way which includes all possibilities that only accused has committed the crime and it should exclude all possibilities that any person other than the accused has committed the crime.