LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Circumstantial Evidence – Duty of Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
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's guilt from circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Achike, JSC, in Ebre & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-591999(SC) at p. 16; Paras C–E.
"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's guilt from circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts must narrowly examine circumstantial evidence because it may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another. Before drawing an inference of guilt, the court must ensure no co-existing circumstances weaken or destroy the inference. The evidence must be consistent only with guilt. The court must consider alternative explanations. The principle requires meticulous scrutiny. The judge must guard against the risk of manufactured evidence. The chain of circumstances must be complete and unbroken. Any missing link or alternative hypothesis requires acquittal. The duty applies to both trial and appellate courts. Circumstantial evidence requires even more careful evaluation than direct evidence due to the risk of error.
