COURTS ACCEPT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN PROOF OF FACTS

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT IS CAPABLE OF TWO INTERPRETATIONS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON

Oguntade, JSC while allowing the appeal in Cyriacus Ogidi v. State Ors. (2005) LPELR-2303 (A) (SC); (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 918) 286 Estated at page 30 as follows: “In the State v. Muhtari Kura (1975) 2 SC 83 and 89, this court decided that when circumstantial evidence is capable of two possible interpretations, one against and the other in favour of the accused then in that circumstance, there has been no proof beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence to support a conviction in a criminal trial, especially murder must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must let lead to the irresistible conclusion that the prisoner and no one else is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. Per Humphrey, J. in R. v. Taylor & 2 Ors. 21 Cr. App. 20.”

WHERE NO DIRECT EVIDENCE, COURT WILL USE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

It is trite law that where, as in the present case, no direct evidence of an eyewitness to the commission of an offence is available, the court may infer from the facts proved the existence of other facts which logically and conclusively establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See Adepetu v. The State (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt.565) 185. Accordingly, when strong circumstantial evidence is led against an accused person in a criminal trial and this gives rise to the drawing of a presumption or inference irresistibly warranted by such evidence, the criminal court will not hesitate to draw such a presumption or inference so long as it is so cogent and compelling as to convince the jury that on no rational hypothesis other than the inference can the facts be accounted for. See Uwe Idighi Esai and others v. The State (1976) 11 SC 39; Peter Nwachukwu Eze v. The State (1976) 1 SC 125 etc. The onus is on the accused person to rebut the guilt based on circumstantial evidence but this is merely on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. See Michael Peter v. The State (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt.531) 1.

— Iguh, JSC. Adeniji v. State (2001) – SC. 210/1999

NATURE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

“Under our criminal jurisprudence, circumstantial evidence is defined as evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with mathematical exactitude, and that where direct evidence is unavailable, circumstantial evidence which is cogent, compelling and pointing irresistibly and unequivocally to the guilt of the accused is admissible to sustain a conviction. Circumstantial evidence consists of various pieces of evidence which in themselves alone cannot ground conviction, but when put together can constitute a good solid case for the prosecution. Circumstantial evidence is as good as, and sometimes better than any other sort of evidence. See Ukorah v The State (1977) 4 SC (Reprint) page 111 (1977) LPELR 3345 (SC), Peter v The State (1997) 12 NWLR (pt 531) page 1, Adie v The State (1980) 1 – 2 SC page 116 (1980) LPELR – 176 (SC).”

— J.I. Okoro, JSC. State v Ifiok Sunday (2019) – SC.709/2013

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAPABLE OF LEADING TO A CONVICTION

But the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction in a criminal trial, especially murder, must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the prisoner and no one else is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.

– Nnamani JSC. Lori v. State (1980)

WEAKNESS IN THE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CANNOT LEAD TO A CONVICTION

What is a heavy blow? Was it a heavy blow with a fist, a plank, a stick, an iron, a rock, from a falling object, from a car, a motor cycle or what? There is no indication from the evidence on record. The absence of this vital link from the evidence of P.W. 1 goes to show the weakness in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which the learned trial judge regarded as strong. The chain of evidence was therefore not complete to link the crime with the stick allegedly held by the appellant when he decided to pursue the deceased. There is no evidence circumstantial or otherwise, which conclusively established that the injuries, which caused the death, was attributable to the application of the stick. Of course the stick was not described. Was it a big stick, a small stick, a thin stick; was it a strong or weak stick? There was no answer.

— Obaseki, JSC. Adie v. State (1980) – SC24/1978