What is Circumstantial

Evidence?
By Florence
 What: All forms of evidence other than
direct evidence.
The nature of circumstantial evidence is
weak which leads to various inferences being
drawn from the set of facts.
Despite the fact that the nature of evidence
is weak, there are cases where it is possible
to secure the convictions towards the
accused.
Why: The evidence from various facts are so
connected with the facts in issue that when
they combine, they form a chain of
circumstances which leads to an inference or
presumption of the principle facts.
 Sunny Ang v PP[1966] 2 MLJ 195
The appellant was convicted guilty of murder of his
girlfriend. He appealed because the appellant
argued that there was no concrete evidence that he
did so. Thus, there was a miscarriage of justice. In
fact, the body of the victim could never be found.
Unfortunately, the Court held that there was a
concrete evidence which leads to irresistible
conclusion that the appellant had murdered the
victim.
Why? The decision made was based on the facts
adduced by the prosecution.
 What happened: The appellant (A) hired a boat from a
boatman (B) and on his directions, B took A and the victim (V)
to a place between the two islands, known as Sister Islands
where he dropped the anchor.
According to A, they went there to collect corals and V
followed A to assist him.
The intention of A to murder V can be seen when A insisted V
to put on a diving equipment and wearing flipper, which had
previously been cut (a flipper worn by V on that day was
recovered and its heel strap was found to have been
severed cut at the top and bottom by a sharp instrument
such as a knife, a razor blade or a pair of scissors), and dive
alone despite knowing the fact that V is a beginner or a
novice diver.
A who was an experienced diver, should have known that
the waters near Sisters Islands were dangerous because of
its strong currents.
The murder intention became stronger when A had financial
benefit from the insurance payouts for Vs death.
 The expert witness at the trial said that the loss of a
flipper would result in a divers loss of equilibrium
and would affect the divers mobility.
Based on these facts, it was beyond reasonable
doubts that there was a motive of preparation
(prior and subsequent conduct) on the part of A to
murder V under Section 8(1) of Evidence Act 1950.
Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a
motive or preparation for any fact in issue or
relevant fact.
Hence, A had the intention to murder V.
The circumstantial evidences in this case was strong
enough to secure a convict against A for guilty of
murder.
 Juraimi Husin & Others v PP [1998] 1
MLJ 537
The case was based on circumstantial evidence.
What happened: The Vs body was decapitated by the As.
Flashback (a day before): V withdrew his money
(RM300,000). The As went for a spending spree and spent
more than RM200,000.
The As intention to murder V was stronger when:
a) As had financial problems;
b) Certain items belonging to the V such as his identity card,
watch and shoes were found in the As possession;
c) V was last seen alive in his car with the 2nd A;
d) It was found that the Vs body was buried in a hole in the
ground soon after he was murdered. In short, there was a
pre-planning to dug the hole before the murder.
 In Juraimis case, the circumstantial evidence was so
strong that the As was found guilty of murder that
they faced death penalty under Section 302 of
Penal Code and were sentenced to death in 2001.
However, there are some cases where the
circumstantial evidences were weak and the Court
was unable to secure a guilty charge against the
accused.
 PP v Sarjit Kaur [1998] 1 MLJ 184
Judgment by Visu Sinnadurai J;
Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances
surrounding an event or offence from which a fact in
issue may be inferred. Some examples of
circumstantial evidence are:
(a) motive;
(b) acts preparatory to the commission of the offence;
(c) fingerprints;
(d) possession of stolen goods; and
(e) presumptions of fact.
 What happened: The accused (A) was charged for
murder of her husband (V) under Section 302 of
Penal Code. V was slashed on the neck four times
which caused the death of V. The prosecution
relied solely on circumstantial evidence in
attempting to establish that it was the accused who
killed her husband.
The Court, unfortunately, held that the
circumstantial evidences in this case were weak
and thus, A was found not guilty of the murder.
But why?
 A) The A was said to be unfaithful wife. But, the mere
fact that a wife goes away after a quarrel does not
mean A was unfaithful.
B) It was said that there was frequent quarrels between
A and V. But, there was evidence to show that V and
the A had gone on holidays abroad together, that just
before Vs death, V even paid a huge deposit for the
purchase of a Mercedes-Benz car for A. Hence, it is
difficult to draw any reasonable inferences that the A's
motive in killing her own husband was because of V so-
called ill-treatment of A.
C) A was said to gain financial benefit from Vs death.
But, the house in Kampong Tunku and the shophouse
in Brickfields were heavily mortgaged to the bank.
Furthermore, A was unlikely to inherit everything
because of the bad relationship with Vs family.
 D) A was said to plan the killing systematically. According to
one of the witnesses (W1) statement, A insisted that the two
maids together with the three children went to bed earlier
than usual. But, another witness (W2) statement
contradicted to W1s statement saying that one of the
children was with him until 10pm.
E) The DPP also questioned as to why A did not scream or go
berserk or run for help when A discovered V had been slayed.
The prosecution also submitted that A did not call the police
immediately but instead called the V's mother and brother at
about 4.30 am. But, it is not a universally accepted fact,
especially amongst psychologists, that screaming is a normal
expression of sorrow and grief in every case. For instance,
when the deceased's mother saw her son dead, there was
no evidence to indicate that she screamed or that she
fainted. This is because people react differently under
different or even under similar circumstances.
 F) It was said that the knife outside the kitchen was
the murder weapon. But, there was no concrete
evidence to show that there were blood stains on
the knife.
These are among the findings that were brought to
the Court. The Court in this case held that no clear
motive had been established by the prosecution to
show why the accused had possibly wanted to kill
her own husband. Additionally, there was no As
fingerprints found in the exhibits or in any part of
the house.
So based on Visu Sinnadurais examples of
circumstantial evidence, the evidences in this case
were too weak to charge A for murder of V.
 In Public Prosecutor v Chew Wai Keong & Anor and
another application [2014] 10 MLJ 527, Teo Say Eng
JC held that:

The test and standard of proof required on

circumstantial evidence. It is trite law that where the
prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence, the
onus upon it is a very heavy one and that evidence
must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused. If
there are gaps in it then that will not be sufficient
Conclusion: If the prosecution wants to use
the circumstantial evidence in their case,
they have to make sure that the evidence
produce is a strong evidence & does not
creates doubts which can cause the
prosecution failed in their case. The
evidence is unable to stand alone without
the support from the other related
circumstances.