Prima Facie Journey

        Evidence could be classified to several types. One of it is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be defined as any fact from the existence of which the judge may infer the existence of a fact in issue. Meanwhile, the direct evidence is one which immediately establishes the fact in issue. In other words, circumstantial evidence can be said as evidence which does not derived directly but are connected with the facts in issue. As together it could form a chain of circumstances leading to an inference or presumption of the principal fact.

        
          In the case of Kartar Singh & Anor v R [1952] 18 MLJ 85, it was stated that when circumstantial evidence arise the judge must approach a different way than approaching a direct evidence. Murray Aynsley CJ mentions that, " Here the evidence must be such that, if it is believed, there is no reasonable alternative to the guilt of the accused. If it is anything less than this it is no case at all". 

        In the case of Sunny Ang v PP [1967] 2 MLJ 195, the court face the situation of dealing with circumstantial evidence. The fact of the case is the accused was charged with the murder of his lover, by allowing her to dive in unsafe water. the evidence shows that the accused was a bankrupt and had taken life insurance policies, in which the accused was the beneficiary. The accused made a claim with the insurance company within 24 hours after her disappearance. The cumulative effect of all the evidence leads to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused who committed the crime. The chances to indicate that it was an accident was mere low. All the facts when connected to each other leads to one explanation that accused intentionally caused the death of the girl. And there could be no other explanation from those facts. Based on this circumstantial evidence the Court convicted and sentenced the accused to death.

The followings are the general principles observed by the courts when dealing cases on circumstantial evidence:

a) Every fact or circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be clearly proved beyond the shadow of any doubt;

b) The incriminating circumstances must lie incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused;

c) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;

d) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 

         To summarize, when it comes to circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must proved satisfactorily and it should be consistent at the same time with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There must be a complete chain of evidence to show that the act must have been done by the accused.