Submitted by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2017-08-14T14:24:37Z No. of bitstreams: 1 RicardoPerinNardiDissertacao2016.pdf: 1076205 bytes, checksum: ed2cbd304304f71bd3a54a7123d7f2bf (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2017-08-14T14:24:44Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 RicardoPerinNardiDissertacao2016.pdf: 1076205 bytes, checksum: ed2cbd304304f71bd3a54a7123d7f2bf (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-14T14:24:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 RicardoPerinNardiDissertacao2016.pdf: 1076205 bytes, checksum: ed2cbd304304f71bd3a54a7123d7f2bf (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-11-26 / This study supports the idea that circumstantial evidence makes possible to obtain the truth in criminal procedure. Therefore, we argue, first, that the truth obtained in criminal procedure doesn???t differ from the truth obtained in other branches of science, although there are certain limitations imposed by other similar weight values of the truth, such as sealing the taking of evidence by illegal terms. Having established this premise and adopting the theory of truth as correspondence, we argue that the analysis of the evidentiary argument must submit the inference to the most coherent theory of the case, which basically consists of a logical method of analysis of evidential reasoning that the hypothesis must explain more coherently the available evidence, which supports the hypothesis. / O presente estudo defende a ideia de que a prova por ind??cios possibilita obten????o da verdade no processo penal. Para tanto, defendemos, em primeiro lugar, que a verdade obtida no processo penal n??o se difere da verdade obtida nos demais ramos da ci??ncia, conquanto haja determinadas limita????es impostas por outros valores de semelhante peso ?? verdade, como ?? o caso da veda????o ?? obten????o de provas por meios il??citos. Estabelecida essa premissa, e adotando a teoria da verdade com correspond??ncia, defendemos que a an??lise do argumento probat??rio deve seguir o m??todo da infer??ncia para a explica????o mais coerente, que consiste, basicamente, em um m??todo l??gico de an??lise do racioc??nio probat??rio em que a hip??tese deve explicar de forma mais coerente as evid??ncias dispon??veis, as quais sustentam a hip??tese.