Direct Evidence VS Circumstantial Evidence

Direct evidence refers to evidence attested by a witness, thing or documents. Circumstantial evidence basically refers to all other evidence. Prima facie, the nature of such evidence is weak as it can lead to several inferences. However it can still lead to convictions. We will be talking mainly on murder convictions here.

Lord Cairns in the case of Bel Haven & Stenton Peerage provides us with a colourful description on how circumstantial evidence can secure a conviction as follows:

“My Lords, in dealing with circumstantial evidence we have to consider the weight which is to be given to the united form of all the circumstances put together. You may have a ray light so feeble and that by itself will do little to elucidate a dark corner. But on the other hand you may have a number of rays, each of them insufficient, but all converging and brought to bear upon the same point, and when united, producing a body of illumination which will clear away the darkness which you are endeavoring to dispel.”

The classic Malaysian case is Public Prosecutor v Sunny Ang. Here the accused when missing in sea and was last seen with the accused, her boyfriend. Circumstantial evidence such as the fact she was last seen with him, she was a novice diver, her flippers were cut, it was in dangerous waters, the accused renewed her insurance policy that day, the accused mother was the beneficiary, the accused never attempted to find her and he claimed the insurance on that very day, put together, secured the conviction.

To the contrary, circumstantial evidence failed to secure a conviction in Public Prosecutor v Hanif Basree. In that case, the accused was last seen with the deceased in her apartment before she died. However, conflicting testimonies by witnesses and a unidentified persons DNA in the crime scene led to the possibility that there could have been someone else.

Both cases above point to one principle, it must lead to the irresistible inference and conclusion that accused committed the crime. This test is no different than the general burden of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt. This was affirmed by Gopal Sri Ram J in Juraimi Hussin v Public Prosecutor. The only difference is that it would be much harder on part of the prosecution. To put it simply, it is the same destination, but two different roads. With direct evidence, it is a straightforward road, with circumstantial evidence, it would be a maze in which the prosecution must help the court solve.

There are a few who might disagree that circumstantial evidence should not secure convictions, but as of now, it can.

Written By Surenda Ananth