Question

Read the following passage and answer the questions from 111 to 115. quote In the law of evidence, circumstantial evidence---often termed ``indirect evidence''---is a set of facts that, while not proving a fact in issue directly, allows for a logical inference of its existence. Unlike direct evidence, such as the testimony of an eyewitness who perceived the specific factus reus, circumstantial evidence relies on a multi-layered inferential process. The probative value of such evidence is governed by the ``Panchsheel'' of circumstantial evidence, a judicial standard requiring that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established and form a complete chain that leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The judiciary distinguishes between the admissibility of individual circumstances and the cumulative effect of the entire evidentiary corpus. Under the ``Last Seen Theory,'' if the accused and the deceased were seen together in a place where no one else could have intervened, the burden of proof under the Reverse Onus principle may shift to the accused to explain the circumstances, as per the doctrine of special knowledge. However, this theory is seldom sufficient for a conviction in isolation; it must be corroborated by other factors such as motive, subsequent conduct, or the recovery of incriminating objects. A critical safeguard is the ``Exclusion of Every Other Hypothesis'' rule. For a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the facts proved must be incompatible with any other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. If two views are possible on the evidence adduced---one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence---the benefit of the doubt must inevitably be extended to the accused. quote What is the fundamental distinction between Direct and Circumstantial evidence?

• A. Direct evidence is written, while circumstantial evidence is always oral.
• B. Direct evidence proves a fact without an intermediate inference, whereas circumstantial evidence requires logical deduction.
• C. Circumstantial evidence is only admissible in civil cases, never in criminal trials.
• D. Direct evidence is provided by experts, while circumstantial evidence is provided by laypersons.

Hint:

Direct Evidence: Directly proves a fact (e.g., eyewitness testimony). Circumstantial Evidence: Proves a fact indirectly by drawing logical inferences from established circumstances.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Recall the core distinction the passage draws.
Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence differ in how strongly they connect to the fact being proved.
Step 2: State the distinction plainly.
Direct evidence proves a fact on its own, with no need for reasoning in between, while circumstantial evidence only allows the fact to be inferred logically from a set of surrounding facts.
Step 3: Rule out the wrong statements.
The passage never says circumstantial evidence is always oral, restricted to civil cases, or tied to who provides it, so those options fall away.
\[ \boxed{\text{Direct evidence proves a fact without an intermediate inference, whereas circumstantial evidence requires one}} \]