CRIMINAL LAW ā Circumstantial Evidence ā Sufficiency for Conviction ā When Circumstantial Evidence May Ground Conviction
Principle Statement
Circumstantial evidence that will meet the requirement of onus of proof in criminal cases is the evidence that fixes the accused person to the crime with sufficient cogency which excludes the possibility that someone else had committed the crime. Once circumstantial evidence conclusively points to the accused as the perpetrator of the crime and same is adequately scrutinized and accepted by the court, the onus shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt or to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case albeit by preponderance of probabilities.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Mukhtar, JSC, in Jua v. State (2010) NLC-123-287-2008(SC) at pp. 21ā22; Paras DāA.
"Circumstantial evidence that will meet the requirement of onus of proof in criminal cases is the evidence that fixes the accused person to the crime with sufficient cogency which excludes the possibility that someone else had committed the crime. Once circumstantial evidence conclusively points to the accused as the perpetrator of the crime and same is adequately scrutinized and accepted by the court, the onus shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt or to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case albeit by preponderance of probabilities."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that circumstantial evidence can ground a conviction if it fixes the accused with sufficient cogency, excluding the possibility of another perpetrator. Once accepted, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut. The principle applies where circumstantial evidence is relied upon. It ensures that circumstantial evidence can suffice. The principle reflects that circumstantial evidence is valid. It prevents acquittals where evidence is conclusive. The court must scrutinize the evidence. The principle provides guidance on the use of circumstantial evidence.
