The circumstantial evidence may lead to the incriminating conclusion by way of the elimination of interpretations that are consistent with the defendant's innocence. Against the evidence that points to the defendant's guilt, the court must consider – according to the tests of logic and life experience – reasonable hypotheses that are consistent with the defendant's innocence. The defendant will be convicted only if the incriminating conclusion is the only logical conclusion."
InCriminal Appeal 4086/91 Maimon v. State of Israel, IsrSC 46(2) 868, 873, the Supreme Court referred to the essence of circumstantial evidence, saying:
"The rule is, as is well known, that in examining the question of whether there is circumstantial evidence brought before it to establish a conviction, it is incumbent upon the court to examine the totality of the circumstantial evidence, and the defendant's explanations, in the tests of logic and life experience, and only if the incriminating conclusion, which is drawn from this respect, clearly and decisively prevails over any alternative thesis and no other reasonable conclusion remains, it can be said that the defendant's guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt" (see also: Criminal Appeal 5152/91 Haliwa v. State of Israel, unpublished, [published in Nevo], given on October 17, 1995; Criminal Appeal 497/92 Michael v. State of Israel, unpublished, [published in Nevo], given on October 24, 1995).
InCriminal Appeal 1888/02 State of Israel v. Mikdad, IsrSC 56(5) 221, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of circumstantial evidence in Hai Lishna:
"Regarding circumstantial evidence, it was stated that 'the power of such evidence to serve as a basis for determining a finding that the defendant is obligated to do will be the result of its degree of certainty. Therefore, a final finding should not be determined, on which the conviction is based, unless such a finding is logically required by the circumstance or circumstances that have been proven' (Criminal Appeal 411/84 State of Israel v. Lviv, IsrSC 39(1) 293, at p. 302). The necessary inference is examined according to considerations of logic and life experience. And when can a conviction be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence? In one case, the words were worded in the following words: 'When circumstantial evidence is involved, the evidence must lead by way of elimination to one conclusion of the defendant's guilt. But this does not mean that any circumstantial evidence on its own must be sufficient to convict the accused. Each piece of evidence in itself must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the final conclusion can be reached from the combination of several such circumstantial evidence, each of which is not sufficient in itself to convict the defendant' (Criminal Appeal 524/77 Mizrahi v. State of Israel, IsrSC 32(2) 682, at pp. 685-686)."