In a criminal trial the guilt of the accused person for the commission of any crime can be proved by any or all the following methods;
1. The confessional statement of the accused person or
2. Circumstantial evidence,
3. Evidence of an eye witness.
Where, as in this case, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the facts relied upon must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must be incapable of any other explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. The evidence must be so compelling that from the entire circumstances of the case, none other than the accused person must have committed the offence. See: Obosi Vs The State (1965) NMLR 119; Orji v. The State (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt.1094) 31 @ 61; Chukwu v. The State (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt.1343) 1; Iliyasu v. The State (2015) LPELR-24403 (SC) @ 39 40 B A.
In discharging the burden of establishing its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt, as it is enjoined to do pursuant to Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the prosecution may rely on:
a. Direct evidence of eye witnesses;
b. Circumstantial evidence; and/or
c. The confessional statement of the accused person.
See: Igabele v. The State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt.975) 100 @ 120 121 H A; Abirifon v. The State (2013) LPELR 20807 (SC); Adio v. The State (1986) 5 (SC) 194 @ 219 220; Itu v. The State (2016) LPELR 26063 (SC) @ 26 B C.
Proof of the guilt of an accused person by the prosecution must be done through any of the underlisted methods, namely:-
(a) The voluntary confession of the accused person.
(b) Through direct credible and reliable eye witness(s) or victim of the offence account depending on the circumstance of the offence, and
(c) Through circumstantial evidence pointing or focusing on the guilt of the accused person that he was the one or one of the persons who committed the offence(s) charged and by no other person(s) but him. See Adio v The State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.24); Emeka v The State (2001) 6 SC 227; Egboghonome v The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 383.
The saying is well established and also true that even the devil does not know the state of a mans heart. Rather he alone is the best person fully possessed of his own intention.
This restatement has confirmed the adage why a confessional statement made by an accused person is always rated as the best form of evidence. It is no wonder therefore that the law lays down the three ways to prove the guilt of an accused as follows:-
1) through d confessional statement made by the accused.
2) by circumstantial evidence.
3) by evidence of an eye witness.
It must be noted, however, that there is no yardstick by which any circumstantial evidence can be measured before a conviction 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 to possibility or chance that other persons could have been responsible for the commission of the offence, Ijiofor v. State (supra) 385; Ebenehi v. State (supra) 1832.
However, there is a snag here. For the purpose of drawing an inference of an accused persons guilt from circumstantial evidence, there must not be other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy that inference, Igho v State [1978] 3 SC 87: State v Edobor [1975] 9-11 SC 69. Thus, all other factors and surrounding circumstances must be, carefully considered for they may be enough to adversely affect the inference of guilt, Lori v. State [1980] 8-11 SC 81; Udedibia v. State (1976) 11 SC 133; Aigbadion v. State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt.666) 686.
The explanation for this need for circumspection is simple: evidence that falls within this category may be fabricated to cast aspersion on other people, per Lord Normand in R v. Tepper (1952) 480, 489 approvingly adopted in State v. Edobor (1975) 9 11 SC 69, 77. That is why a Court must, properly appraise the circumstantial evidence adduced by the Prosecution before conviction and accused person thereon, Adepelu v. State (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt.565) 185; Iko v. State (2001) FWLR (Pt.68) 1161; (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.732) 221; Orji v. State(2008) All FWLR (Pt.422) 1093, 1107.
My Lords, it is true, indeed, that the category of evidence known as circumstantial evidence, which is, more often than not, the best evidence, Obosi v State (1965) NMLR 119; Ukorah v State [1977] 4 SC 167; Lori v. State (1980) NSCC 269; Onah v State [1985] 3 NWLR (Pt.12) 236; Ebenehi v State [2009] All FWLR (Pt.486) 1825, 1832-1833; Ijiofor v State [2001] 9 NWLR (Pt.718) 371, 385, is the evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undersigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics, Ijiofor v State(supra) 385.
The reason is not farfetched. In their aggregate content, such circumstances lead cogently, strongly and unequivocally to the conclusion that the act, conduct or omission of the accused person caused the death of the deceased person, Idiok v State [2008] All FWLR (Pt.421) 797, 818.
Put, simply, it means that there are circumstances which are accepted so as to make a complete and unbroken chain of evidence, Omotola and Ors v. State [2009] 7 NWLR (Pt.1139) 148, 178; (2009) LPELR -2663 (SC) 42-43. Where such circumstances are established to the satisfaction of the Court, they may be properly acted upon, Wills on Circumstantial Evidence [Seventh edition] A. Okekeifere 324, Circumstantial Evidence in Nigerian Law (Port Harcourt: Law-house Books, 2000) 1; Omotola v. State (supra) 178.
Thus, where there is no eye witness account or direct evidence of the commission of an offence, a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence, Igbale v State [2004] 15 NWLR (Pt.896) 314. However, such circumstantial evidence must point to only one conclusion, namely, that the offence had been committed and that it was the accused person who committed It, Dick v C. O. P. [2009] 9 NWLR (pt 1147) 530, 551.
It is also a settled principle of law that the guilt of an accused person may be proved by any or all of the following ways:-
a). confessional statement of the accused;
b). circumstantial evidence and
c). evidence of an eye witness
It is evident from the foregoing findings of both Courts that appellant's conviction and sentence proceeded on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is evidence of a combination of circumstances against an accused person, none of which, on its own, provides the Court with cogent proof of guilt but when viewed together create strong conclusion of his guilt with the highest degree of exactitude. See Isong Akpan Udoebre & ors v. The State (2001) 8 SCM 127, Joseph Ilori & anor v. The State (1980) 8-11 SC 52 and Moses Jua V. The State (2010) 1-2 SC 96. In a number of its decisions, this Court has insisted that only such circumstances that make a complete and unbroken chain constituting sufficient proof that the accused person did commit the offence for which he is charge will sustain a conviction. See Ofe Adesina (A.K.A. Alhaji) & anor V. The State (2012) 6 SC (Pt.III) 114.
It is trite law, that there are three methods of proof of criminal cases which are in either of the under mentioned methods namely:-
(a) Through eye witness account of the commission of the offence by the accused person or Persons; or
(b) Through a direct and voluntary confessional statement; or
(c) Through circumstantial evidence pointing positively to the guilty of the accused person and to no other person.
See Adekoya v State (2012)9 NWLR (pt.1305)539; Akpa v State (2009)39 WRN 27; Haruna v AG Federation (2012)9 NWLR ( pt. 1306)419.
My Lords, given the above circumstances, I, entirely, agree with the lower Court, that the Prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Surely, where there is no eye witness account or direct evidence of the commission of an offence, a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence, Igabele v State[2004] 15 NWLR (pt 896) 314.
The category of evidence known as circumstantial evidence, which is, more often than not, the best evidence, Obosi v State (1965) NMLR 119; Ukorah v State (1977) 14 SC 167; Lori v State (1980) NSCC 269; Onah v State [1985] 3 NWLR (pt 12) 236; Ebenehi v State [2009] All FWLR (pt 486) 1825, 1832-1833; Ijioffor v State [2001] 9 NWLR (pt 718) 371, 385, is the evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undersigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics, Ijioffor v State (supra) 385.
The reason is not far-fetched. In their aggregate content, such circumstances lead cogently, strongly and unequivocally to the conclusion that the act, conduct or omission of the accused person caused the death of the deceased person, Idiok v State [2008] All FWLR (pt 421) 797, 818.
Put simply, it means that there are circumstances which are accepted so as to make a complete and unbroken chain of evidence, Omotola and Ors v State [2009] 7 NWLR. (pt 1139) 148, 178; (2009) LPELR -2663 (SC) 42-43. Where such circumstances are established to the satisfaction of the Court, they may be properly acted upon, wills on Circumstantial Evidence [Seventh edition] 324; A. Okekeifere, Circumstantial Evidence in Nigerian Law (Port Harcourt: Law-house Books, 2000) 1; Omotola v State (supra) 178.
The law is settled that a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence if it is such that it makes a complete unbroken chain of evidence pointing irresistibly to the conclusion that the accused person and no other committed the offence. The evidence must be such as to leave no room for speculation. See: Peter vs The State(1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 1; Adesina & Anor. Vs The State (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1321) 429; State vs Ogbubunjo(2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 464; Lori & Anor. Vs. The State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 81.
Circumstantial evidence is a testimony not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be proved. The fact that the Appellant called the deceased and the corpse of the deceased was found at the premises of his work, shows irresistibly that he and no other person caused the death of the deceased.
Direct evidence establishes a fact without making any inference to connect the evidence to the fact. Thus, direct evidence proves or disproves a fact directly. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires an inference to be made to establish a fact. "Inference" is "a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them." See Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. Hence, circumstantial evidence does not point directly to a fact. An inference must be made that links the circumstantial evidence to the fact that the party using it, is trying to prove, which can make it a lot more powerful than direct evidence – see Lori & Anor V. State (1980) NSCC (Vol. 12) 269, where Nnamani, JSC, observed as follows- It is conceded that circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is said to be 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 it is circumstantial. But the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction in a criminal trial, especially murder, must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. it must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Prisoner, and no one else, is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt. See also Ukorah V. State (1977) NSCC (Vol. 17) 218. where this Court per Idigbe, JSC, pointed out the "direction" the Court must follow- The learned author of Wills on Circumstantial Evidence– makes reference to a direction of the Court (and to which, we think, we should draw attention, with approval) in the case of Emperor vs. Browning 39 I.C. 322, where it was stated. "In a case in which there is no direct evidence against the Prisoner but only the kind of...
The two lower Courts acknowledged that there is no direct evidence that it was the Appellant, who inflicted the two deep stab wounds on the neck of the deceased, which caused the death of the deceased, and the law does not say that there must be eye-witness testimony or direct evidence to ground a conviction for the offence. The Law accords circumstantial evidence the same respect as direct evidence.
I must in conclusion state firmly that the law requires the respondent to prove the offence with which appellant is convicted beyond reasonable doubt. It allows that to be done through:
(i) Direct evidence
(ii) Circumstantial evidence and/or
(iii) The confession of the accused.
See Freeborn Okiemute V. State (2016) LPELR-40639 (SC) and Olabode Abirifon V. The State (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt 1372) 587.
In the instant case, there was no eye witness to the crime. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to secure the conviction of the appellant and his co-accused.
Where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be strong, cogent and compelling. It must point to the irresistible conclusion that the accused person committed the offence. The evidence must leave no degree of possibility or chance that another person or other persons could have been responsible for the commission of the offence. See: Ijioffor Vs The State (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 718) 371 @ 386 F-G. At page 387 A-B of the report, His Lordship, Ejiwunmi ISC cautioned thus:
"Circumstantial evidence must always be narrowly examined. On the other hand, it has been said that circumstantial evidence is often the best evidence. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances, which by undersigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. It may also be noted that there is no yardstick by which circumstantial evidence can be measured before a conviction can be entered against an accused person charged with the offence for which the circumstantial evidence is the only one available. Each case depends on its own face but the one test that the 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 offence."
See also: Obosi Vs The State (1965) NMLR 119; Lori Vs The State (supra); Chukwu Vs The State (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1343) 1; Iliyasu V. The State (2015) LPELR – 24403 (SC) @ 39-40 B-A.
In discharging the burden of proof, the prosecution may rely on any one or a combination of the following:
i. The confessional statement of the accused person;
ii. Circumstantial evidence;
iii. Evidence of an eye witness.
See:Abirifon Vs The State (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 587; Ogunbayode Vs The Queen (1954) 14 WACA 458; Egboghonome Vs The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 383; Igabele Vs The State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 976) 100 @ 120-121 H-A; Adio vs. The State (1986) 5 SC 194 @ 219-220.
Now, it is trite that the guilt of an accused person can be proved by the confessional statement of the accused, circumstantial evidence or direct evidence of eye witness(es). Accordingly, conviction of an accused may be attained by one or a combination of any of the foregoing types of evidence. See Emeka v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734)666, Igabele v. The State (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt 975) 100 and Stephen Haruna v. The Attorney General of the Federation (2012) LPELR-7821 (SC).
Direct evidence establishes a fact without making any inference to connect the evidence to the fact. Thus, direct evidence proves or disproves a fact directly. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires an inference to be made to establish a fact. "lnference" is "a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them" – Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. Circumstantial evidence, however, does not point directly to a fact.
In other words, an inference must be made, which would link the circumstantial evidence to the fact that the party using it, is trying to prove, which can make it a lot more powerful than direct evidence..
See Lori & Anor V. The State (1980) NSCC (Vol. 12) 269, wherein this Court, per Nnamani, JSC, aptly observed as follows –
Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is said to be 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 it is circumstantial. But the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction – must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Prisoner, and no one else, is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt.
The prosecution can prove the cause of death either by direct or circumstantial evidence. See: ADETOLA & ORS VS THE STATE (1993) 4 SCNJ 1999 at 281; AYO GABRIEL VS THE STATE (1989) All N.C.R. 742: ADEPETU VS THE STATE (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt.565) 185 at 223. The law on this point is, as in the instant case, direct evidence of eye witness is not available, the Court may infer from the facts proved the existence of the facts that may logically tend to prove the guilt of an accused person from circumstantial evidence, however, great care must be taken not to fall into serious error.
The law here is that, before a person can be convicted upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must be so mathematically accurate that it points to the one and only irresistible conclusion that the person was the one responsible for the offence for which he was been charged. See ONAH VS THE STATE (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt.12) 236 at 237, YESUFU VS THE STATE (1976) 6 S.C. 167 at 173.
Circumstantial evidence is something from which facts in issue are/can be inferred. So, before a trial Court convicts an accused person on circumstantial evidence the evidence must be cogent, and unequivocal. It must be compelling and lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused person and no one else committed the offence. The only reasonable conclusion after examining the facts is that the accused person committed the offence for which he is charged. Where circumstantial evidence is deficient it helps the appellant to an acquittal. See Udedibia & Ors v State (1976 11 SC p.133, Adie v State(1980) 1- 2 SC P.116 Ukorah v State (1977) 4SC p.167.
The circumstances of this case in the absence of any direct eye witness to the murder of the deceased, has to be resolved on circumstantial evidence.
By definition:
"a circumstantial evidence is nothing more than evidence of surrounding circumstances which by their nature is capable of establishing a proposition, such as the criminality of an accused with the highest exactitude. It is a combination of evidence of circumstances against an accused when taken together, creates strong conclusions of his guilt with high degree of certainty. It is by application very sparingly used for possible fear of fabrication and casting suspicion on an innocent person
See Oketaolegun v. State 2015 ALL FWLR (Pt.979) page 677.
For circumstantial evidence to ground a conviction, it must lead to one irresistible conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. Any slight doubt must leave room for an acquittal.
Again, the law is trite, that where the circumstantial evidence is not conclusive or is capable of having two interpretations of showing the innocence of the accused and at the same time of his guilt. In such situation, the Court must cast benefit of doubt in his favour to exonerate and acquit him. See STATE vs KRs (1957)5 FSC 83;LGC(I v STATE [1980] 11 SC 81; IJIOFOR v STATE [2001] 3 NWLR (Pt.690) 55.
There is no gainsaying that in the absence of eye witness account, a trial Court is at liberty to draw some inferences from facts presented before it in proof of the guilt of an accused person where there is no direct evidence coming from any witness or witnesses, Be that as it may, before a Court can safely rely on circumstantial evidence to convict an accused person such Court must be extra-ordinarily careful and also be cautious in order not to convict an innocent person or person who is totally not responsible for the commission of the crime and for that reason, the trial Court must very narrowly examine the circumstantial evidence before relying on same to convict the accused person, simply because such evidence might be susceptible to fabrication just in order to rope in an innocent person into the commission of the offence that he knew nothing about. The circumstantial evidence must therefore be unequivocal and must have probative value.
The law is well established, that in criminal trial, proof of commission of a crime by an accused person can be established in any of the following ways or methods, namely:-
1. Through the testimony of an eyewitness or witnesses who witnessed the act of the commission of the offence, by the accused person; or
2. By confessional statement made voluntarily by the person accused of the commission of the offence, or
3. By circumstantial evidence.
However, in the case of proof by reliance on circumstantial evidence, that circumstantial evidence to be relied upon by the prosecution, must be credible, cogent and also must irresistibly point to the guilt of the accused and to no other person. In fact, it is stated in the parlance of criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence is often regarded as a reliable and acceptable mode of proof of a criminal case and the Court can accept and act on it, provided it is cogent and admissible. See SHUAIBU ABDU v THE STATE (2016) LPELR 4461 (SC), USMAN VS. STATE (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1342) 607, MAIGARI v STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT.439) 49; NWABUEZE V. STATE (1996) 2 NWLR (PT.428); HARUNA V. AG FEDERATION (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 419; ADEKOYA V. STATE (2012) 9 NWLR (PT.1306) 539.
Generally, and it has long been established that, in order to prove the guilt of an accused person, the prosecution has to do either or all of the following ways:-
(a) By evidence of eye witness(es);
(b) By confessional statement of the accused person;
(c) By circumstantial evidence.
See Adekoya Vs. The State (2012) 6SCM 58; Mbang Vs. The State (2012) 10 SCM 31; The State Vs. Isah & Ors (2010) 12 SCM (PT. 2) 425.
However, by whatever means the prosecutor employs to prove the guilt of an accused person, the law requires that the guilt must be established clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt.
However, in the case of proof by circumstantial evidence, the circumstantial evidence to be relied upon by the prosecution must be credible, cogent and must irresistibly point to the guilty of the accused and to no other person. In fact it is stated in criminal jurisprudence, that circumstantial evidence is often regarded as a reliable and acceptable mode of proof of a case and the Court can accept and act on it provided it is cogent and admissible. See Usman v. State (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1342) 607; Maigari v. State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 439) 49; Nwabueze v. State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 428).
The criminal jurisprudence is replete with several definitions of circumstantial evidence, all of them leading to one common or general effect. In the case of Musa Mamman v. The State (2015) LPELR–255963 (CA), circumstantial evidence was thus defined: “Now, circumstantial evidence is evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with high level of certainty and the accuracy and/or precision of mathematics. It is not a derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial.
However, to be sufficient to ground a conviction in a criminal trial, circumstantial evidence must be complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant and no one else did the deed and as such, it is only the defendant and no one else, who should be criminally culpable for the offence alleged or charged.
The facts must be incompatible with the innocence or non-culpability of the defendant and incapable of explanation by any other reasonable hypothesis or consideration than that of his guilt – State Vs Njoku (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt.1175) 243 and Oladotun Vs State (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1217) 490. It is trite law that before a defendant can be convicted for culpable homicide or murder on circumstantial evidence, the fact of death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt.
The circumstantial evidence should be cogent and compelling as to convince the Court that no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for. A conviction for culpable homicide or murder on circumstantial evidence must point to the guilt of a defendant with the accuracy of mathematics. A Court cannot convict on circumstantial evidence, especially in a case of murder or culpable homicide where such evidence points in more than one direction Osuoha Vs State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 364 and Maigari Vs State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 439.
In other words, for circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction, the following conditions must be met: (i) the evidence must irresistibly and unequivocally lead to the guilt of the defendant; (ii) no other reasonable inference could be drawn from it; and (iii) there must be no co-existing circumstances which could weaken the inference. All the three conditions must exist in the adduced evidence to ground and sustain the conviction of a defendant- Shehu Vs State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112.” Per ABIRU, JCA (Pp. 27-29, paras. C-B) See also the case of Nwalo v.
State (2021) LPELR–56302 (CA) PP. 19–20, paras E–B. The question now arises, whether the grounds constituting the circumstantial evidence upon which the appellant was convicted satisfies the following conditions:- (I) the irresistible and unequivocal conclusion of the guilt of the appellant. (II) that no other reasonable inference could be drawn from it. (III) that there is no co-existing circumstances which could weaken the inference. PER ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.
I consider it imperative to consider the availability of circumstantial evidence on the standard required by law that can serve as a tripod on which the conviction of the appellant can be sustained. The Nigeria Criminal jurisprudence is replete with several definitions of circumstantial evidence, all of which lead to one general or common effect. In the case of Musa Mamman v.
The State (2015) LPELR – 255963 (CA), circumstantial evidence was defined as: “Now, circumstantial evidence is evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with high level of certainty and the accuracy and/or precision of mathematics. It is not a derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. However, to be sufficient to ground a conviction in a criminal trial, circumstantial evidence must be complete and unequivocal.
It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant and no one else did the deed and as such, it is only the defendant and no one else, who should be criminally culpable for the offence alleged or charged. The facts must be incompatible with the innocence or non-culpability of the defendant and incapable of explanation by any other reasonable hypothesis or consideration than that of his guilt – State Vs Njoku (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt.1175) 243 and Oladotun Vs State (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1217) 490.
It is trite law that before a defendant can be convicted for culpable homicide or murder on circumstantial evidence, the fact of death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence should be cogent and compelling as to convince the Court that no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for. A conviction for culpable homicide or murder on circumstantial evidence must point to the guilt of a defendant with the accuracy of mathematics.
A Court cannot convict on circumstantial evidence, especially in a case of murder or culpable homicide where such evidence points in more than one direction Osuoha Vs State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 364 and Maigari Vs State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 439. In other words, for circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction, the following conditions must be met: (i) the evidence must irresistibly and unequivocally lead to the guilt of the defendant; (ii) no other reasonable inference could be drawn from it; and (iii) there must be no co-existing circumstances which could weaken the inference.
All the three conditions must exist in the adduced evidence to ground and sustain the conviction of a defendant- Shehu Vs State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112.” Per ABIRU, JCA (Pp. 27-29, paras. C-B) See also the case of Nwielo v. The State (2021) LPELR – 56302 (CA) p. 19 – 20, paras. E – A. PER ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.
The criminal jurisprudence is replete with several definitions of circumstantial evidence, all of them leading to one common or general effect. In the case of Musa Mamman v. The State (2015) LPELR–255963 (CA), circumstantial evidence was thus defined: “Now, circumstantial evidence is evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with high level of certainty and the accuracy and/or precision of mathematics. It is not a derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial.
However, to be sufficient to ground a conviction in a criminal trial, circumstantial evidence must be complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant and no one else did the deed and as such, it is only the defendant and no one else, who should be criminally culpable for the offence alleged or charged.
The facts must be incompatible with the innocence or non-culpability of the defendant and incapable of explanation by any other reasonable hypothesis or consideration than that of his guilt – State Vs Njoku (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt.1175) 243 and Oladotun Vs State (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1217) 490. It is trite law that before a defendant can be convicted for culpable homicide or murder on circumstantial evidence, the fact of death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt.
The circumstantial evidence should be cogent and compelling as to convince the Court that no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for. A conviction for culpable homicide or murder on circumstantial evidence must point to the guilt of a defendant with the accuracy of mathematics. A Court cannot convict on circumstantial evidence, especially in a case of murder or culpable homicide where such evidence points in more than one direction Osuoha Vs State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 364 and Maigari Vs State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 439.
In other words, for circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction, the following conditions must be met: (i) the evidence must irresistibly and unequivocally lead to the guilt of the defendant; (ii) no other reasonable inference could be drawn from it; and (iii) there must be no co-existing circumstances which could weaken the inference. All the three conditions must exist in the adduced evidence to ground and sustain the conviction of a defendant- Shehu Vs State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112.” Per ABIRU, JCA (Pp. 27-29, paras. C-B) See also the case of Nwalo v.
State (2021) LPELR–56302 (CA) PP. 19–20, paras E–B. The question now arises, whether the grounds constituting the circumstantial evidence upon which the appellant was convicted satisfies the following conditions:- (I) the irresistible and unequivocal conclusion of the guilt of the appellant. (II) that no other reasonable inference could be drawn from it. (III) that there is no co-existing circumstances which could weaken the inference. PER ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.
I consider it imperative to consider the availability of circumstantial evidence on the standard required by law that can serve as a tripod on which the conviction of the appellant can be sustained. The Nigeria Criminal jurisprudence is replete with several definitions of circumstantial evidence, all of which lead to one general or common effect. In the case of Musa Mamman v.
The State (2015) LPELR – 255963 (CA), circumstantial evidence was defined as: “Now, circumstantial evidence is evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with high level of certainty and the accuracy and/or precision of mathematics. It is not a derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. However, to be sufficient to ground a conviction in a criminal trial, circumstantial evidence must be complete and unequivocal.
It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant and no one else did the deed and as such, it is only the defendant and no one else, who should be criminally culpable for the offence alleged or charged. The facts must be incompatible with the innocence or non-culpability of the defendant and incapable of explanation by any other reasonable hypothesis or consideration than that of his guilt – State Vs Njoku (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt.1175) 243 and Oladotun Vs State (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1217) 490.
It is trite law that before a defendant can be convicted for culpable homicide or murder on circumstantial evidence, the fact of death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence should be cogent and compelling as to convince the Court that no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for. A conviction for culpable homicide or murder on circumstantial evidence must point to the guilt of a defendant with the accuracy of mathematics.
A Court cannot convict on circumstantial evidence, especially in a case of murder or culpable homicide where such evidence points in more than one direction Osuoha Vs State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1219) 364 and Maigari Vs State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 439. In other words, for circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction, the following conditions must be met: (i) the evidence must irresistibly and unequivocally lead to the guilt of the defendant; (ii) no other reasonable inference could be drawn from it; and (iii) there must be no co-existing circumstances which could weaken the inference.
All the three conditions must exist in the adduced evidence to ground and sustain the conviction of a defendant- Shehu Vs State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112.” Per ABIRU, JCA (Pp. 27-29, paras. C-B) See also the case of Nwielo v. The State (2021) LPELR – 56302 (CA) p. 19 – 20, paras. E – A. PER ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.
The law has made it explicit that there are three ways of proving criminal liability by the prosecution in any criminal trial, to wit: (a) Confessional statement of the accused. (b) Evidence of an eyewitness otherwise known as direct evidence; or (c) Circumstantial evidence which must be cogent and compelling leading to the irresistible conclusion that the accused committed the offence. See Agboola v. The State (2013) 8 SC M 157; (2011) 11 NWLR (pt 1366) 619 – Abdullahi Ibrahim v. State (2014) 3 NWLR (pt 1394) 305 – Alufohai v. The State (2015) 3 NWLR (pt. 1445) 172. JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C
It is trite that there are three methods through which the prosecution can establish the guilt of an accused person to wit: (i) Through the testimony of an eyewitness; or (ii) By a confessional statement voluntarily made by the accused person; or (iii) By circumstantial evidence which is positive, compelling and points irresistibly to the conclusion that the accused person committed the offence. See OJO v. STATE (2018) LPELR-44699 (SC); KOLADE v. STATE (2017) LPELR-42362 (SC); AKWUOBI v. STATE (2016) LPELR-41389 (SC). PER ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C
The guides as provided in a large number of decided cases that in all criminal trials, the guilt of an accused person for the commission of an offence can be established by any one or more of the following methods or ways:- 1. By eye witness evidence. 2. By a free and voluntary confessional statement of the accused person; and 3. By circumstantial evidence. Reference is made to the following cases: 1. SUNDAY UDOR vs. STATE (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt.1422) 548 at 561 para B 2. AKEEM AGBOOLA vs THE STATE (2013) 11 NWLR (Pti366) 619 at 648 paras A-C 3.
EMEKA vs STATE (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.734) 666 at 683 pars G-H. MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
In the Court’s duty of resolving the question of whether an accused is guilty of the offence charged, it has been guided by certain parametres which are the following: a. The confession of the accused b. Circumstantial evidence; and c. Evidence of eye witness of the crime. See Lori v. State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 81; Maigari v. State (2010) All FWLR (pt. 546). Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili J.S.C.
“It is also well settled that for any circumstantial evidence to support the conviction of the offence charged, that evidence must be credible, cogent, consistent, and unequivocal and leads to no conclusion other than the guilt of the person charged with the offence.” – PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.:
Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires an inference to be made to establish a fact. “Inference” is “a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. In other words, circumstantial evidence does not point directly to a fact. An inference must be made that would link the circumstantial evidence to the fact that the Party using it is trying to prove, which can make it a lot more powerful than direct evidence – see Lori V.
State (1980) NSCC (Vol. 12) 269, wherein Nnamani, JSC, stated: Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is said to be 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 it is circumstantial. But the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction – – must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Prisoner, and no one else, is the murderer.
The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt. AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.
I posit with humility that circumstantial evidence may be even more powerful than direct evidence in certain cases as held in State v. Sunday (2019) LPELR-46943 (SC), that it is settled that circumstantial evidence requires an inference to be made to establish a fact, and in certain cases, circumstantial evidence may be even more powerful than direct evidence, which proves or disproves a fact directly – see Lori & Anor V. State (1980) NSCC (Vol. 12) 269. PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
It is well settled that where the circumstances of the commission of an offence are positive, direct, and unequivocal and irresistibly lead to the inference that it is the accused that committed the crime such inference ought to be drawn. See Shazali v. The State (1988) 12 SC (Pt. 11) 58. In other words, evidence which is positive, irresistible and leaves no room for other explanations beyond pointing at the accused person’s guilt is sufficient to ground conviction. See Mbenu v. The State (1988) 7 SC (Pt. 111) 71 at 84; Adepeju v. The State (1998) 7 SC (Pt. 1) 117 at 128; Nasiru v.
The State (1999) 1 SC 1 AT 14; Ahmed v. The State (1999) 5 SC (Pt. 11) 398. Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is said to be evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics which lead to a finding with such degree of certainty that the appellant killed the deceased. PER TALBA, J.C.A.