PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Where strong circumstantial evidence gives rise to an irresistible presumption or inference, the trial court will draw such inference so long as it is cogent and compelling that no rational hypothesis other than guilt can account for the facts. Circumstantial evidence that cogently, irresistibly, positively, unequivocally and conclusively points to the accused will sustain a conviction.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Iguh, JSC, in Amala v. State (2004) NLC-2312002(SC) at pp. 17–18; Paras E–A.
"The law is firmly settled that where strong circumstantial evidence is led against an accused person in a criminal trial and this give rise to the drawing of a presumption or inference irresistibly warranted by such evidence, the trial 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 and Peter Eze v. The State (1976) 1 SC 125. In the same vein, where the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution cogently, irresistibly, positively, unequivocally, unmistakably and conclusively points to the accused as the perpetrator of the offence alleged to have been committed, a court of law would be entitled to infer from such evidence and surrounding circumstances that the accused committed the offence and convict him on such evidence."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction if it is cogent, compelling, and excludes every rational hypothesis except guilt. The inference of guilt must be irresistible. The principle applies to criminal evidence. The rule requires the prosecution to present evidence that unmistakably points to the accused. The court may convict even without direct eyewitness testimony. The standard remains proof beyond reasonable doubt.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE

Sunday Amala v. The State