From
the various classifications mentioned in the preceding post, we are able to enumerate the
following “types” of evidence; (i)
Direct (ii) Circumstantial (iii) Primary (iv) Secondary (v)
Insufficient (vi) Prima facie (vii) Conclusive (viii) Hearsay (ix) Oral
(x) Documentary (xi) Real (xii) Original
(xiii) Indirect (xiv) Personal (xv) Pre-appointed
(xvi) Causal and (xvii) Best Evidence. We shall in a
nutshell define or describe some of these types of evidence.
1.
Direct
Evidence
A
piece of evidence is direct if it is based on personal knowledge or observation
and if true to be believed, proves a fact out of inference or presumptions. It
a testimony of (a) what you hear
with your ears (b) what you see with
your eyes (c) what you smell with
your nose (d) what you touch with
your hand or body and (e) what you
taste with your mouth or tongue. The term ‘direct’ relates to the source of
your knowledge, being deposed to. It is also called “positive evidence”. Oral evidence must be
direct evidence. Direct evidence also includes real evidence because the court
sees for itself.
2.
Circumstantial
Evidence
This
is also called indirect evidence or oblique evidence because it is based on
inference rather than personal knowledge or observation. It is evidence of some
collateral fact from which the existence or non-existence of some fact in
question may be inferred as a probable consequence. Circumstantial evidence is
offered for the purposes of the court inferring therefrom the existence
of a fact in issue. In most cases, it takes the form of oral evidence. However,
before a court can depend on circumstantial evidence, it must be very cautious
and circumspect.
Perhaps an examination of
the nature of circumstantial evidence in criminal proceedings will not be out
of place. In Abieke v. State (1975) 9-11
SC 97, the court said that
before a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must
not fall below the standard required by law. In other words, the prosecution
must proof beyond reasonable doubt that such evidence only points to the guilt
of the accused.
This same view was held by
the English court in R. v. Tapper (1952)
AC 480 @ 489 and State v. Edebo
(1975) 9-11 SC 89. The court in those cases said that for a court to
convict an accused person on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must lead
conclusively and indisputably to the guilt of the accused person. Similarly, in
the case of Abieke v. The State
(supra), the court said that it is an elementary proposition that mere circumstances
of suspicion are not sufficient to justify a conviction. Thus, suspicion
however strong cannot take the place of legal proof.
Again, the authority of Ogwa Nweke Onah v. The State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 236 says that
before a person can be convicted upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence
must be so mathematically accurate that it points to one and only irresistible
conclusion that the person was the one responsible for the offence for which he
has been charged. In the case of Edet
Obosi v. The State (1965) 3 NMLR 119, the court said that where
circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other conclusion than
the guilt of the accused, it leaves no room for acquittal.
In R. v. Taylor,
Weaver and Donovan; the court said that it has been stated that the
evidence against the appellant is circumstantial, so it is; but, circumstantial
evidence is often the best. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which
by undersigned coincidence is capable of providing a proposition with the accuracy
of mathematics.
Also, in Stephen Ukora v. The State (1997) 4 SC 164 @ 167 the court said that
circumstantial evidence is as good as and sometimes better than any other type
of evidence. What this means is that there are a number of circumstances which
are accepted so as to make a complete and unbroken chain of evidence. Finally,
in Ben Okafor v. The Police (1965) NMLR
89, the court said that no amount of suspicion would even mature into proof
of a case. Suspicion may be many and sometimes grave yet they will amount each
to suspicion and no further.