The Court of Appeal has recently emphasized that when a prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, the facts proved must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but also must exclude every reasonable possibility of innocence. “…The establishment of suspicious circumstances alone is generally not sufficient to meet the burden of proof …
Circumstantial Evidence Must Exclude Innocence of Accused- CA
The Court of Appeal has recently emphasized that when a prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, the facts proved must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but also must exclude every reasonable possibility of innocence.
“…The establishment of suspicious circumstances alone is generally not sufficient to meet the burden of proof to establish an accused guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Suspicion may arise further questions but it does not equate to proof of guilt…” – Justice Amal Ranaraja
The case began with a violent incident that took place in a quiet neighborhood. One evening, an altercation broke out involving the accused and the deceased. A key witness later told the court that he saw the accused strike the deceased twice, once on the face and once on the arm. But that was all he saw. He did not witness what happened next, nor did he see anyone deliver a fatal blow.
Shortly after the assault, another man arrived at the scene. This second witness played a different role. He helped carry the injured man to the hospital. While doing so, he noticed that there was another person present at the scene, someone who had not been identified. This raised a critical point: the presence of this third person meant the full picture of what happened wasn’t entirely clear.
The victim later died in the hospital. A medical examination revealed that the cause of death was serious head injuries, injuries far more severe than what the first witness described. No one had seen how those fatal head injuries were caused. The only direct evidence was that the accused had struck the man on the face and arm, injuries that did not match the fatal wounds.
The court noted that the prosecution’s evidence did not conclusively rule out the possibility of another person being responsible. As the proved facts were consistent with both guilt and innocence, the Court ruled that the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal reiterated that if two reasonable interpretations arise from the evidence, one pointing to guilt and another to innocence, the court must adopt the interpretation favorable to the accused.
“…To prove a case through circumstantial evidence, one typically need to gather various pieces of circumstantial evidence that are relevant to the case. Thereafter, clearly demonstrate how those pieces of evidence connect to each other and lead to a reasonable inference about the facts of the case. Argue against other reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the same evidence and combine all pieces of evidence into a compelling story that makes the case more convincing. Ultimately, the strength of secondary evidence can lie in its ability to paint a broader picture when combined with other evidence making a case more persuasive to a judge…” – Justice Amal Ranaraja
Important Cases Cited
King Vs Abeywickrama 44 NLR 254 – In order to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence the jury must be satisfied that the evidence was consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any reasonably hypothesis of his innocence
King Vs Appuhamy 46 NLR 128 – In order to justify the inference of guilty from purely circumstantial evidence, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt
Podisingho Vs. King 53 NLR 49 – In a case of circumstantial evidence it is the duty of the trial Judge to tell the jury that such evidence must be totally inconsistent with the innocence of the accused
Emperor Vs Browning (1917) 18 Cr. L.J.482 – The jury must decide whether the facts proved exclude the possibility that the act was done by some other person, and if they have doubts, the prisoner must have the benefits of those doubts.
Munirathne And Others vs. The State 2001 2 SLR page 382 at page 394 – The burden of establishing circumstances which not only establish the accused’s guilt but are also inconsistent with his innocence remains on the prosecution throughout the trial
Bandara Deegahawathura vs. Attorney General CA No. 61/2001– (a) Proved facts must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused (b) Proved facts must point the finger of guilt only to the accused (c) Proved facts must be incompatible and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. (d) Proved facts must be incapable of any other reasonable explanation than that of his guilt. In a case of circumstantial evidence, if two decisions are possible from the proved facts, then the decision which is favorable to the accused must be taken. In a case of circumstantial evidence, if the circumstances found to be as consistent with the innocence as with the guilt of the accused; or if an innocent explanation is found from the evidence of the prosecution, no inference of guilt should be drawn.
Case No: CA HCC 98/23 [Decided 30.04.2025]
Before: B. Sasi Mahendran, J. and Amal Ranaraja, J.
