CORAM

---

ABDU ABOKI (PJ)

HON. JUSTICE JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI

---

PARTIES

---

MRS. REBECCA VINCENT ANTHONY APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is an appeal against the judgment delivered in the High Court of Taraba State, holden at Jalingo wherein the Appellant and her husband were tried and convicted for criminal conspiracy and abduction of a new born baby contrary to Sections 97(1) and 273 of the Penal Code. The Appellant, aggrieved by her conviction and sentence, approached this Court by a notice of appeal.

---

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 IN CRIMINAL CASES – ON WHO LIES THE 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. 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- MEANING 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 THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN PROVING 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.” –

---

PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF ABDUCTION – INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN 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- WHETHER THE FACT THAT AN ACCUSED PERSON HAS TOLD LIES MAY BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF OF GUILT

---

“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 NWLR and Haruna vs. Police (1967) NWLR 145.” –

---

BURDEN OF PROOF- ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“The burden duty to prove the guilt of an accused person squarely rest on the shoulders of the Prosecution. He must discharge this burden by a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Anything short of this entitles the accused person to an order of discharge and acquittal.” –

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act, 2011|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT