Sufficiency Of Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of
facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about the guest of an accused in a criminal trial. Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.
Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been provided, you must be convinced that the people have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Also one must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. Note that the circumstantial evidence that can lead to a convictive must be such that is sufficient to link the accused with the offence or offences charged and also point unmistakably and irresistibly to the commission of the offences by the accused. See Omogodo V. State (1981) 5 SC.5
In Tajudeen V. State (SC/241/2013) The appellant as the second accused person was charged with one Kabiru Mohammed at the High Court of Kaduna with the offence of conspiracy under section 97 of the penal code and culpable homicide punishable with death under 221 of the penal code. They pleaded not guilty. The trial court discharged and acquitted both accused persons on the count of conspiracy and accused on the count of culpable Homicide punishable with death.  The appellant was however found guilty on the count of culpable homocide, punishable by death and convicted and consequently sentenced to death. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the issue for determination was whether or not, the lower court’s decision to affirm the trial court’s conviction of the appellant for culpable homicide, was right having regard to the circumstantial evidence available.
It was held that for a conviction to be based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must leave no doubt that the accused person is responsible for the commission of the offence. Also, there is no yardstick by which a circumstantial evidence can be entered against an accused person. Thus each case depends on its own facts. However, one test which such evidence must satisfy is that it should lead to the guilt of the accused person and leave no degree of possibility or chance that other persons could have been responsible for the commission of the office. Also for an inference of guilt to be properly drawn from circumstantial evidence, there must be no surrounding circumstance which would adversely affect the inference of the guilt ie, other co-existing circumstance which would weaken or destroy the inference. Thus, all other factors and surrounding circumstances must be carefully considered, for they may be enough to adversely affect the inference of guilt. See Lori V State (1980) 811 SC 81.

Nkechi Bright-Ewere