A Comparative Analysis of the Application of Circumstantial Evidence in the Criminal Systems of Iran and Egypt and Islamic Jurisprudence

Abstract

Circumstantial evidence, as an important instrument of indirect proof in criminal proceedings, plays a fundamental role in discovering truth, establishing judicial knowledge, and achieving criminal justice. The transformation of criminal behavior and the limitations of traditional evidentiary mechanisms have increased the importance of material, moral, scientific, and electronic indications in contemporary legal systems. The present study aimed to comparatively analyze the application of circumstantial evidence in the criminal systems of Iran and Egypt and Islamic jurisprudence. Using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, this study examined the jurisprudential and legal foundations of circumstantial evidence, its position in criminal proof, and the limitations of its application. The findings indicated that, in Islamic jurisprudence, the validity of circumstantial evidence depends on the type of crime, its degree of certainty, and its compatibility with principles such as the presumption of innocence and the rule of avoiding hudud punishments in doubtful cases. In hudud crimes, the use of circumstantial evidence is more restricted due to the necessity of caution and prevention of unjust convictions, whereas in ta’zir crimes, it has broader applicability. In the Iranian criminal system, circumstantial evidence mainly obtains validity through the formation of judicial knowledge and must be based on objective, assessable, and case-related evidence. Conversely, the Egyptian criminal system, through its emphasis on judicial persuasion, provides greater flexibility in evaluating circumstantial evidence, although judicial decisions must remain reasoned and evidence-based. The comparison demonstrates that the main difference between the two systems is not the acceptance of circumstantial evidence itself but the theoretical foundation and method of applying it. Ultimately, the effective use of circumstantial evidence requires a balance between truth discovery, modern evidentiary developments, and protection of defendants’ rights.