INTRODUCTION Evidence of Similar Facts is the evidence that tend to establish the fact in issue by proving the previous similar acts or omissions of the accused person. Evidence of general resemblance or general similar facts is inadmissible. They are admissible if they show not only a general resemblance but also such a particular resemblance as to fix the accused as the actor on the particular case. Similar Fact Evidence and Common Law Prior to the 19th Century, similar fact evidence was excluded unless it had a particular function. In the 19th Century, the reverse situation prevailed and similar fact evidence becomes, prima facie, admissible unless it showed only propensity. In 1894, exclusionary rule was restored and fact was confirmed by the Privy Council in the case of MakinvAttorneyGeneralofNewSouthWales (1894) A C 59 at 65. This is a case in which a husband and his wife were charged for murdering a baby and during investigation the remains of the baby and that of three other babies were found buried in the garden at the back of the house of the Makins. Further investigation revealed the remains of seven other babies were found in the yard of the house where the Makins once lived. Considering all these evidence, the Privy Council accepted them as evidence on the ground that they showed that the accused persons had deliberately killed the baby in question. In his judgement, Lord Herschel stated the common law rule on similar fact as follows: It is undoubtedly not competent for the prosecution to adduce evidence tending to show that the accused has been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered by the indictment for the purposes of leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person likely from his criminal conduct or