State v Fiadzo presumptive or circumstantial and presumption from said evidence must be inconsistent with innocence, if consistent with innocence than or and guilt conviction not sustainable, guilty knowledge is a matter of inference from facts and merits of case.
A fact from which a court may infer, presume or deduce the existence or non-existence or proof of another fact, not proof itself and utilized where direct evidence isn’t available, assessed cumulatively, different and more mere rumours or suspicions, court requires a high standard of proof, lifestyle evidence as evidence assumed to exist from living circumstances of a person is extreme and inadmissible.
R v Taylor it’s evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with accuracy of mathematics, per R v Exall it isn’t a chain such that if one chain breaks the link, however it’s a rope with several cords such that if one cord may be sufficient but more cords will be quite sufficient to sustain weight.
S 18(2) inference is a deduction of fact which may be logically and reasonably drawn from established fact or group of facts. Dexter Johnson v Rep required no eye witness account available and must lead to only one irresistible conclusion that offence has been committed and it is accused who committed offence, judge not referring to the word circumstantial evidence in his judgement didn’t nullify proceedings.
Frimpong alias Iboman v Republic during investigations evidence may be direct and quite conclusive but others indirect and circumstantial, circumstantial may be sole where apart from accused there might be no living witness of the crime, other forms of circumstantial evidence are forensic examinations, DNA, mobile and SMS messages, email messages, crime scene investigations, etc. also known as presumptive evidence, circumstantial evidence is drawn only when presumption follows irresistibly from the circumstances proved in evidence and to justify inference of guilt the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with innocence and incapable of explanation upon reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, conviction must not be based on probabilities or mere suspicion, opportunity on accused’s part to do act and knowledge of circumstances enabling it to be done were admissible to prove identity.
State v Ali Kassena guilt inference doesn’t necessarily flow from false or conflicting explanations given by accused, dangerous to leave to jury evidence which amounts to suspicion only as there is fear of they putting a multitude of suspicions together and make proof out of it.
Nyamo v Tarzan inference must be distinguished from conjecture which may be plausible but of no legal value as a mere guess, inference however is deduction from evidence which may have validity of legal proof.
Duah v Rep-supra to draw inference of guilt one should make sure there was no other co-existing circumstances which would destroy or weaken it, circumstantial evidence is one of surrounding circumstances capable of proving proposition with accuracy of mathematics. State v Otchere evidence of rumours of crime commission about assassination attempt on president isn’t proof of attempt on president’s life.