2017Journals & Books Hosting (International Knowledge Sharing Platform)Open access

Circumstantial Evidence and Its Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings: A Comparative Analysis of the Common Law and Islamic Law Systems

Sowed Juma Mayanja

Open full text 3 citations

Abstract

There are two basic forms of evidence that may be admitted in courts of law; one, direct evidence which does not require any inference to arrive at a conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, and this includes eye witness and confession, and two, indirect evidence which is also known as circumstantial evidence, which requires an inference to be made in order to arrive at a conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. The perception among the public is that circumstantial evidence is an inferior form of evidence which carries less weight than direct evidence. One sometimes hears persons who have been convicted of an offence affirm their intention to appeal against a conviction as the evidence was only circumstantial. The situation is worse when it comes to its admissibility under Islamic law. The general perception is that circumstantial evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings under Islamic law system. This paper, therefore, examines the significance and admissibility of circumstantial evidence in criminal proceedings. It makes a comparative analysis of the Common law and Islamic law systems. It finds out that circumstantial evidence is admissible in all cases in Common law system, while in Islamic law system; Muslim jurists hold different views with regard to its admissibility in Huduud and Qisaas cases. It draws a conclusion that although Muslim jurists hold different views, the soundest view is its admissibility in all cases including Huduud and Qisaas . This is because what is important in a conviction is proof which satisfies court that the accused is guilty of the crime against him or her, and circumstantial evidence is among the proof. As a general rule, the value of circumstantial evidence lies in its cumulative value; while a single item may not be enough to satisfy court of the guilt of the accused, several items taken together may carry enough probative force to justify a conviction. Keywords: indirect evidence, circumstantial evidence, inference, Huduud , Qisaas , cumulative value, probative force.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

There are two basic forms of evidence that may be admitted in courts of law; one, direct evidence which does not require any inference to arrive at a conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, and this includes eye witness and confession, and two, indirect evidence which is also known as circumstantial evidence, which requires an inference to be made in order to arrive at a conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. The perception among the public is that circumstantial evidence is an inferior form of evidence which carries less weight than direct evidence. One sometimes hears persons who have been convicted of an offence affirm their intention to appeal against a conviction as the evidence was only circumstantial. The situation is worse when it comes to its admissibility under Islamic law. The general perception is that circumstantial evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings under Islamic law system. This paper, therefore, examines the significance and admissibility of circumstantial evidence in criminal proceedings. It makes a comparative analysis of the Common law and Islamic law systems. It finds out that circumstantial evidence is admissible in all cases in Common law system, while in Islamic law system; Muslim jurists hold different views with regard to its admissibility in Huduud and Qisaas cases. It draws a conclusion that although Muslim jurists hold different views, the soundest view is its admissibility in all cases including Huduud and Qisaas . This is because what is important in a conviction is proof which satisfies court that the accused is guilty of the crime against him or her, and circumstantial evidence is among the proof. As a general rule, the value of circumstantial evidence lies in its cumulative value; while a single item may not be enough to satisfy court of the guilt of the accused, several items taken together may carry enough probative force to justify a conviction. Keywords: indirect evidence, circumstantial evidence, inference, Huduud , Qisaas , cumulative value, probative force.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

There are two basic forms of evidence that may be admitted in courts of law; one, direct evidence which does not require any inference to arrive at a conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, and this includes eye witness and confession, and two, indirect evidence which is also known as circumstantial evidence, which requires an inference to be made in order to arrive at a conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. The perception among the public is that circumstantial evidence is an inferior form of evidence which carries less weight than direct evidence. One sometimes hears persons who have been convicted of an offence affirm their intention to appeal against a conviction as the evidence was only circumstantial. The situation is worse when it comes to its admissibility under Islamic law. The general perception is that circumstantial evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings under Islamic law system. This paper, therefore, examines the significance and admissibility of circumstantial evidence in criminal proceedings. It makes a comparative analysis of the Common law and Islamic law systems. It finds out that circumstantial evidence is admissible in all cases in Common law system, while in Islamic law system; Muslim jurists hold different views with regard to its admissibility in Huduud and Qisaas cases. It draws a conclusion that although Muslim jurists hold different views, the soundest view is its admissibility in all cases including Huduud and Qisaas . This is because what is important in a conviction is proof which satisfies court that the accused is guilty of the crime against him or her, and circumstantial evidence is among the proof. As a general rule, the value of circumstantial evidence lies in its cumulative value; while a single item may not be enough to satisfy court of the guilt of the accused, several items taken together may carry enough probative force to justify a conviction. Keywords: indirect evidence, circumstantial evidence, inference, Huduud , Qisaas , cumulative value, probative force.

Key concepts: Circumstantial evidence, Conviction, Law, Witness, Islam, Appeal, Criminal law, Reasonable doubt

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Circumstantial Evidence and Its Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings: A Comparative Analysis of the Common Law and Islamic Law Systems — Research Paper | ScholarLens