ISAAC GAVOH & 3 ORS.V. JOHNSON AKWAI
April 5, 2025COUNTY & CITY BRICKS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD VS HON. MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ANOR
April 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 11380
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Thu Jan 31, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/65C/2017
CORAM
ABDU ABOKI (PJ)
HON. JUSTICE JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI
PARTIES
MR. VINCENT ANTHONY KACHEBRY APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and his wife were tried and convicted for criminal conspiracy and abduction of a new born baby contrary to section 97 (1) and 273 of the Penal Code in the High Court of Taraba State. According to the prosecution, PW1’s daughter who was staying with the wife of the Appellant, delivered a baby by caesarean operation and was discharged from the clinic after seven days. However, PW1, who was with the daughter was told by the Appellant’s wife that his daughter had a stillbirth hence he could not see the baby. Two weeks after, PW1 heard that the Appellant’s wife had given birth to a baby. Upon hearing this, PW1 became suspicious and reported to the police that the child that the Appellant’s wife gave birth to was his daughter’s child whom the Appellant’s wife claimed was stillborn. The Appellant in his defence stated that he got to know PW1’s daughter when his wife was in Mutum Biyu. The Appellant further alleged that after he married his wife, she fell ill and was taken to the hospital and was tested and discovered that she was pregnant, that upon discovery of his wife pregnancy, the Appellant then got an apartment at Mutum Biyu where she was working and that his wife was already pregnant before she met PW1’s daughter. Subsequently, the Appellant’s wife put to bed at the same hospital where PW1’s daughter also put to bed. The matter then went on trial and the judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant to a fine of N3, 000 or three months imprisonment in default on count one and count two. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal before this court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the prosecution has discharged the onus of proof placed on it as required by Law” (distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the appellant (sic) grounds of appeal.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES
“It is the law that in criminal cases the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and the burden does not shift. It is not the law that the accused person proves his innocence. Even where an accused person in his statement to the police admitted committing the offence, the prosecution is not relieved of that burden so that a wrong person will not be convicted for an offence he never committed. See Nwalu vs. The State (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1638) 158 at 171 and People of Lagos State vs. Umaru (2014) 3 SCNJ (2014) 114 at 137.”
STANDARD OF PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES
“Whether by direct evidence of eye witnesses, the confessional statement of the accused person or by circumstantial evidence, all the ingredients of the particular offence for which the accused is charged must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to warrant his conviction. See Nwalu vs. The State (supra) at page 171.”
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – NATURE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
“Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is said to be evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undesigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to ground a conviction only where the inferences drawn from the whole history of the case point strongly to the commission of the offence by the accused person. For circumstantial evidence to ground a conviction, it must lead to one conclusion; namely the guilt of the accused person. See Ilori vs. The State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 81 at 86 – 87, Durwole vs. The State (2000) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 1 and Ubani vs. The State (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 22.”
PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY
“To prove conspiracy the prosecution must show beyond reasonable doubt that (a) There was an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means; (b) Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence that some act besides the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the agreement (c) That each of the accused persons individually participated in the conspiracy. Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of doing things towards a common end where there is no direct evidence in support of an agreement between the accused persons. The conspirators need not know themselves and need not have agreed to commit the offence of conspiracy at the same time. The Courts tackle the offence of conspiracy as a matter of inference, to be deduced from certain criminal actions of the parties concerned. See Adekoya vs. The State (2017) 1 SCNJ 62 at 83, Oduneye vs. The State (2001) 12 NWLR 88 and Daboh vs. The State (1977) SC 197.”
OFFENCE OF ABDUCTION – INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO ESTABLISH THE OFFENCE OF ABDUCTION
“To establish the offence of abduction the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (i) That the accused person used force on a person and (ii) That such person was thereby compelled to go from a place or (iii) That the accused induced a person to go from a place; or (iv) That he did so by deceitful means.”
PROOF OF GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON –WHETHER THE FACT THAT AN ACCUSED PERSON TOLD A LIE RELIEVES THE PROSECUTION OF ITS DUTY OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“A person may lie though innocent. Such lies may be a result of fear or stupidity or indeed anxiety. The fact that an accused person has told lies has never been accepted as proof of guilt. The fact that an accused person has told lies does not relieve the prosecution of its duty of proving the guilt of the accused of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt. See Omogodo vs. The State (1981) 5 SC 5 at 22, Okpere vs. The State (1971) 1 All NLR and Haruna vs. Police (1967) NWLR 145.”
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act 2011|Penal Code and abduction|
