Direct Evidence

As rightly held by the trial Court, relying on the case of:Amusa Vs The State (2002) FWLR (Pt.85) 382 @ 393 C – D, the desirability of calling as a witness the person who identified the body of the victim to the doctor who performed the autopsy is necessary only where the identity of the body examined by the doctor is shrouded in doubt. It was held in that case that where the identity can be inferred, such direct evidence is not essential. See also A.G Federation vs Ogunro & Ors. (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt.720) 175 @ 186 – 187; Igago Vs The State (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 608) 568: Adamu Vs Kano N.A. (1956) 1 FSC 25.

It is a given principle that in establishing the offence of armed robbery the prosecution's evidence need not necessarily be the direct evidence of an eye witness as same could also be either circumstantial evidence or the confessional statement of the accused. See Onyenye v. State (2012) LPELR-7866 (SC) Lori v. State (1980) 8-11 SC 81.

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.

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...