Conviction on circumstantial evidence

My aunt was convicted of murder just because she was the first person to find the deceased. According to her, she visited her friend’s house only to find a naked body in the living room. To preserve the dignity of her friend, she decided to dress her up before calling the neighbours and the police. I do not think the Court made a justifiable decision since no eyewitness saw my aunty commit the crime. Is it proper for a Court of law to rely on circumstantial evidence? Kindly guide me.
LM, Kigoma

In the administration of justice, Courts prefer direct evidence since it is based on a witness’s knowledge of facts and links the accused person directly to the crime. Nonetheless, Courts may grant conviction solely on circumstantial evidence. In several cases, the Courts have articulated the basic test that must be fulfilled for conviction to rely solely on circumstantial evidence. In summary, Courts have a settled view that the circumstantial evidence must lead to the inference that the accused and no one else committed the offence. Further, such evidence must also be incapable of any other interpretation than pointing towards the guilt of the accused. You will note that this is a very difficult test, which is why circumstantial evidence is relied upon in very few exceptional cases. We cannot comment on your aunt’s conviction since we do not have all the facts of the case. Your lawyer can guide you further.