CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

PC. SALISU MAMUDA

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant who was arraigned and charged along with five others inter-alia for rape contrary to Section 283 of the Penal Code law at the Kano State High Court, was found guilty under the 11th, 12th and 13th heads of charge for raping one Hindatu Sani on the 26th, 27th and 28th of October 2010 respectively. On conviction, he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment and a N50, 000.00k (fifty thousand naira) fine for each of the head of the three count charge. In default of the payment of the fine, a six-month term of imprisonment was to be served for each head of the charge. The imprisonment terms were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division. The appeal was dismissed by the lower Court. Still aggrieved, the Appellant has further appealed to this Court.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence properly before the trial Court, the Court below was right when it confirms the decision of the trial Court. Whether in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence properly before the trial Court, the Court below was right when it confirms the decision of the trial Court. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in its findings that there was no breach to the Appellant’s right to fair hearing in the conduct of the entire proceedings.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CONTRADICTION – NATURE OF CONTRADICTION IN THE EVIDENCE OF A PARTY SUFFICIENT TO WEAKEN THE CASE OF A PARTY WHO RELIES ON SAME

---

“The applicable principle is that only material or grave contradictions in the evidence of a party which goes to the root of the case weakens the case of the party who relies on the evidence so bedeviled. See Okereke V. The State (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt 540) 73 at 91 and Uwagboe V. State (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt 1102) 621.”

 

---

CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENCE OF RAPE- INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SUSTAIN THE CONCURRENT CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON FOR RAPE

---

“Now, both counsel agree that to sustain the concurrent conviction of the appellant by the two Courts below under Section 282 of the Penal Code Law for rape, the prosecution must prove by credible evidence and beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse the appellant himself admitted he had with PW5, a woman not his wife, was in any of the following circumstances: – (a) against her will; (b) without her consent; (c) with her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death or of hurt; (d) with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married; (e) with or without her consent, when she is under fourteen years of age or of unsound mind. (Underlining mine for emphasis).”

 

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – EXTENT OF THE POWER OF APPELLATE COURTS IN THE EVALUATION AND ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE TO EVIDENCE

---

“The task of evaluating evidence and ascribing probative value to it is the primary duty of the trial Court. The lower Court and indeed this Court, unlike the trial Court, are handicapped when evaluation of evidence, as in this case, is raised and credibility of the witnesses is made an issue. See Nnorodim V. Ezeani (2001) 2 SC 145 and Onuoha V. The State (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt 548) 118.”

 

---

STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON- WHETHER A FAILURE TO MAKE AN ACCUSED PERSON’S STATEMENT AVAILABLE TO HIM IS SUFFICIENT TO QUASH THE OFFENCES FOR WHICH HE IS CHARGED WITH

---

“It is true that therein this Court has held that it is not a right that appellant’s statement be made available to him failing which the charge which he faces is quashed.”

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS – GROUNDS ON WHICH THE SUPREME COURT WILL DISTURB THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS

---

“By the applicable principle, the concurrent findings of the two Courts below the appellant wants this Court to interfere with clearly draw from the evidence on record and which the appellant has not succeeded in demonstrating otherwise must persist. The trial Court’s findings as affirmed by the lower Court are arrived at on the basis of the credibility of the witnesses of either side which the former, having seen and observed them while testifying was better placed to assess, an advantage which neither the lower Court nor this Court has. Both Courts remain handicapped. Having failed to show that the concurrent findings are perverse, this Court cannot therefore oblige the appellant. See Omotola & Ors V. The State and Chukwuma V. FRN (2011) LPELR-863 (SC).

 

---

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – DUTY OF COURT WHEN INTERPRETING STATUTES

---

“It is long settled that a law Court in interpreting a statute will refrain from ascribing to the clear and unambiguous words that make up the statute their natural meaning if doing so will result in absurdity. See Awolowo V. Shagari (1979) 6-9 SC 51at 66 and Nigeria Arab Bank Ltd V. Comex Ltd (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt 608) 648.”

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS – ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS

---

“There is concurrent findings of fact both by the trial Court and the lower Court on the issue of contradictory evidence. The appellant has an uphill task to convince this Court that the findings made the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Court are perverse and so have occasioned a miscarriage of justice before this Court can interfere with those findings. In the sister case of Inspector Dantalle Mohammed v. Kano State (2018) LPELR SC 801/2015, wherein the appellant was the 2nd accused while the appellant in the instant appeal was the 3rd accused, it was emphasized by Eko JSC that this Court will not unless under special circumstances, hear arguments seeking to disturb concurrent judgements of the Court below on pure questions of fact. See: Serbeh v. Karikari (1939) 5 WACA 34. The established policy of this Court is that it will not, for a third time, review the evidence unless special circumstances justify a departure from the practice.”

 

---

CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT- WHAT IS A CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT?

---

“Let me state clearly that a contradictory statement is a statement which states the opposite of what is being contradicted. A contradictory statement is an affirmation of the contrary of what was earlier stated or spoken. Thus for a statement to be contradictory it should be a direct opposite of what was earlier stated or spoken. See Dagayya v. The State (2006) LPELR – 912 (SC) p.26 paragraphs D – E, Ogoala v. The State (1991) LPELR – 2307, (SC) p.20 paragraphs B – C.”

 

---

CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES -WHETHER A MERE SLANT IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES AMOUNTS TO CONTRADICTION

---

“The law is very clear that only grave and material contradiction (if any) which goes to the root of the case which can cause the evidence to tumble. Outside this, mere slant in the evidence of witnesses cannot be termed as contradictions”.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

None

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Criminal Procedure Code|Evidence Act, 2011|Penal Code law|

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT