Discuss "Direct evidence and Circumstantial evidence" under the Evidence Act.

Direct Evidence: Evidence is either direct or indirect. Direct Evidence is that evidence which is very important for the decision of the matter in issue. The main fact when it is presented by witnesses, things and witnesses is direct, evidence whereby main facts may be proved or established that is the evidence of person who had actually seen the crime being committed and has described the offence. We hardly need to point out that in the illustration given by us, the evidence of the witness in Court is direct evidence as opposed to testimony to a fact suggesting guilt. The statement before the police only is called circumstantial evidence of, complicity and not direct evidence in the strict sense. It directly related to the real point in issue. For example, testimony of an eye witness will be treated as direct evidence. In another example if one person is alleging that another person has breached the terms of the agreement and hence he is liable to pay compensation to the first person in such category the original document of the agreement will constitute a direct evidence. Direct evidence is considered to be superior to circumstantial evidence because it creates a direct nexus between the evidence and fact in question. 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 decided case, the acceptance of evidence and there appreciation thereof is not a rigid mathematical formulae and hence the circumstantial evidence plays 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 to the matter. Further, 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v/s State of MP AIR 1952 SC 343 that "In dealing with circumstantial evidence there is always the danger that suspicion may take the place of legal proof. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In other words there can be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." The same test has been reiterated by the apex court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC.