Circumstantial Evidence II

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which the existence or non-existence of facts in issue may be inferred. S 5 of the Evidence Act provides that if the evidence is relevant, then it is admissible. Thus, circumstantial evidence is admissible but with a lesser degree of probative value.

One famous case on circumstantial evidence is Sunny Ang v PP (which had been discussed at length in one of our earlier blog posts). In the case of Johar bin Mustapa v PP, the accused was convicted for drug trafficking. Some of the circumstantial evidence which lead to the conviction was that: the accused opened the trunk of the car, removed the bag and threw it away right after the car crash; the accused chased away those who came forward to help him; the accused looked confused when approached; and the accused ran away when he saw the police.

In the case of Yeap Boon Hai v PP, the court relied fully on circumstantial evidence in convicting the accused of murder by setting fire to the family home. Among the circumstantial evidence were: the neighbour living opposite the accused saw him ascending the staircase alone at 3.50am in the morning; the petrol station attendant said the accused had earlier bought petrol with four empty plastic containers; the accused’s brother and sister-in-law testified that the accused argued with his wife when she asked for a divorce; the neighbour next door hear them quarrel at about 3.30am; a chemist testified that the liquid which was in the plastic containers was petrol which had in fact evaporated; the officer of the fire department testified that the fire was started with inflammable liquid such as petrol; and the pathologist testified that the cause of death was from smoke inhalation.

However, in PP v Sarjit Kaur, the accused was found not guilty of the murder of her husband on the following circumstantial evidence which were seen as weak by the court: the accused was an unfaithful wife and was ill-treated; the accused stood to benefit financially from her husband’s death; traces of blood stains were found on a dress belonging to the accused; and the accused had insisted that the maids and her three children go to bed earlier.

The two famous tests used in applying circumstantial evidence are the ‘Irresistable Conclusion Test’ and ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’. The Irresistable Conclusion Test is that the judge in looking at all the circumstantial evidence must come to the irresistable conclusion that the accused is guilty, as seen in R v Hodge. The House of Lords in Mc Greevey v DPP stated that when an accused is proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, there is no need for a special direction of the Irresistable Conclusion Test.