STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

WHERE NO DIRECT EVIDENCE, COURT WILL USE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

circumstantial evidence

CERTAINTY IS REQUIRED TO CONVICT ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

In Majekodunmi v. The Queen 14 W.A.C.A. 64. Foster-Sutton P. (as he then was), dealing with circumstantial evidence stated at p.69 In view of the conflict and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution can it be said that the case against the appellant was proved with that certainty which is necessary in order to justify a verdict of guilty? …… Moreoever we are not satisfied that the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence given at the trial is one of guilt……. See also Spiff v. Commissioner of Police 19 N.L.R. 81 and the views of this Court in Stephen Ukorah v. The State (1977) 4S.C. 167 at pp.176 et seq, and Udo Akpan Essien v. The State (1966) N.M.L.R. 229

Was this dictum helpful?

CIRCUMSTANTIAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE MUST BE COGENT, COMPLETE, UNEQUIVOCAL

Pius Nweke v. The State (2001) 84 LRCN 482 at 506, was held: “To secure a conviction in a criminal trial, circumstantial piece or pieces of evidence must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. Such evidence must be too compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused and no one else committed the crime. Indeed, the facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other hypothesis than that of his guilt.” See the decision of this Court in Joseph Lori v. The State (1990) 8-11 SC 86 at 87. See also Iyaro v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt.69) 256; Mbenu v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84) 615 at 630; Ukorah v. The State (supra); Adie v. The State (1990) 1-2 SC 11 at 22.

Was this dictum helpful?

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

Was this dictum helpful?

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MUST BE NARROWLY EXAMINED

In R v. Teper (1952) AC 480 at 489, it was held: “Circumstantial evidence may sometimes be conclusive, but it must always be narrowly examined, if only because evidence of this kind may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another… It is also necessary before drawing the inference of the accused guilt from circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference.”

Was this dictum helpful?

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MUST BE IRRITABLE

The ascription of these injuries to the application of a stick, which was not produced, the size of which was not testified to or ascertained, and which was not acknowledged by the doctor P.W.1 as capable of causing the injuries is a serious misapplication of facts and miscarriage of justice. The chain of evidence necessary to lead irresistibly to the guilt of the appellant is not complete in this case. It may well be helpful to remind ourselves what circumstantial evidence is – Circumstantial evidence is as good as, sometimes better than any other sort of evidence, and what is meant by it is that there is a number of circumstances which are accepted so as to make a complete unbroken chain of evidence. If that is established to the satisfaction of the jury, they may well and properly act upon such circumstantial evidence.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MUST BE CAPABLE OF PROVING A PROPOSITION WITH THE ACCURACY OF MATHEMATICS

Speaking of circumstantial evidence, Lord Heward, CJ, said, inter alia: “… but circumstantial evidence is very often the best. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undesigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial.” See R v. Taylor & Ors (1928) 21 CAR 20 at 21.

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.