All the judicial evidence may be direct or circumstantial.

By direct evidence is meant when

the principal fact or factum probandum is attested directly witness or document. To all other
form the term circumstantial evidence is applied. Which may be defined that modification of
indirect evidence whether by witnesses

Circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy three test

 The circumstantial evidence of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and
firmly established
 Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the
guilt of the accused
 The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should from a chain so complete that there is
no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability thee crime was
committed b the accused and none else ( SD soni v. state of Gujrat A 1991 SC 917)
In a case where there is scanty direct evidence, circumstantial evidence plays an important
role (http://cbi.nic.in/dop/judgements/lndec1.pdf)
Circumstantial evidence is unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer
a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect
evidence. The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because,
with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or), nearly all criminals are careful
to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. The criminal
can obliterate the evidences from crime scene but he cannot destroy the circumstances
surrounding the case. Ergo, to prove the
mens rea
levels of "purposely" or “knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial
evidence ( Sundershani Ray, ‘Circumstantial Evidence – Evidence’, Legal Service
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l136-Circumstantial-Evidence.html26348 U.S. 121
(1954).

Circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence “Thus,

the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in
the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials. Successful criminal prosecutions often r
elylargely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on
circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an
advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate. The well-
known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating
circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and "the circumstances proved
must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the
accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible

Shaikh Yusuf v State of West Bengal ((2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 620), on the aspect of circumstantial
evidence, Honourable Apex Court observed as under:-
"
Undoubtedly, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence
. However, the Court must bear in mind while deciding the case involving the commission of serious offence
based on circumstantial evidence that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidences complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability that the act must have been done by the accused

In the famous case of

Bodh Raj v State of Jammu & Kashmir 2(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 620

, Court held that circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for conviction provided the conditions as stated be
are as below:

1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;

2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused