UMMARU MATANKARI V. HAJIYA RABI YARON MANYA
May 6, 2026ABOLAJI ADEYEMI & ANOR V. AMOS AYOOLA OSINLOYE & ANOR
May 7, 2026YAKUBU RABI’U V. KANO STATE
Legalpedia Citation: (2025-07) Legalpedia 93344 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 4, 2025
Suit Number: SC.CR/334/2024
CORAM
John Inyang Okoro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
YAKUBU RABI’U
APPELLANTS
KANO STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
AREAS OF LAW: CRIMINAL LAW, RAPE, EVIDENCE, CORROBORATION, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, BURDEN OF PROOF, MEDICAL EVIDENCE, CHILD TESTIMONY, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL, PENAL CODE, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, Yakubu Rabi’u, a 35-year-old village head of Mahauta in Dambatta Local Government Area, was charged with rape involving Hajara Tukur, a 12-year-old girl. The alleged incident occurred on October 4, 2011, at approximately 07:30 hours at Filing Kwallo Quarters Dambatta, Kano State. The incident was reported to the Divisional Police Station, Dambatta, by PW4, the victim’s elder brother. When invited by the police, the Appellant presented himself at the station where he was detained and subsequently transferred to the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Kano.
At the Divisional Police Headquarters, Dambatta, the Appellant made a confessional statement admitting to the commission of the alleged offence but later retracted the statement. The Attorney-General of Kano State obtained leave to prefer Charge No: K/190c/2011 against the Appellant at the High Court of Kano State for the offence of rape, contrary to Section 283 of the Penal Code of Kano State.
During trial, the prosecution called four witnesses and tendered three exhibits. The Appellant testified on his own behalf and called two additional witnesses but tendered no exhibits. The prosecutrix, who was 13 years old when she testified on April 23, 2013, gave unsworn evidence describing how the Appellant lured her and her friend to various locations, initially asking them to “press his manhood” for money, and eventually committing the alleged rape at Hajiya Bichi’s house where he pulled down her wrapper and inserted his penis into her private part, causing her pain.
The trial Court delivered judgment on April 10, 2014, finding the Appellant guilty and sentencing him to ten years imprisonment with a fine of N10,000.00. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division, which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment on December 16, 2019. Further dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Court held that the prosecution proved the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt through the combined evidence of the medical report (Exhibit A), the Appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibit B), and the prosecutrix’s testimony.
3. The Court found that Exhibit A (medical report) showing a ruptured hymen could indicate vaginal penetration, supporting the conclusion of penetration which is the most important ingredient in proof of rape.
4. The Court held that the Appellant’s confessional statement (Exhibit B) was voluntary and constituted compelling evidence, and that his retraction was merely an afterthought.
5. The Court determined that the prosecutrix, being under 14 years of age, was legally incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse under Section 282(1)(e) of the Penal Code.
6. The Court found that alleged contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence were minor discrepancies concerning dates that did not affect the essential elements of the offence.
7. The judgment of the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division delivered on December 16, 2019, was affirmed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the judgment of the trial Court which held that the prosecution proved the offence of rape as charged beyond reasonable doubt when the unsworn testimony of the prosecutrix was not adequately corroborated by either exhibit A, B or other evidence and there were material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT VERSUS PROOF BEYOND ALL DOUBT
It is trite law in our criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, such proof is not beyond all doubt. This critical distinction means the evidence must be so compelling that it leaves no reasonable uncertainty in the mind of the Court, even if a remote or fanciful possibility remains. In Ugwanyi v. FRN (2012) LPELR-7817(SC), this Honourable Court reaffirmed the guidance of Lord Denning in Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All E.R. 372 thus: ‘… That proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted of fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence ‘of course it is possible, but not in the least probable’ the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt but nothing short of that will suffice.’ – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
DISCHARGING BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – ESTABLISHING INGREDIENTS THROUGH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the statutory burden placed on the shoulders of the prosecution by Section 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2011. The requirement of the law is that for this burden to be discharged by the prosecution, the prosecution must walk through the evidence available to establish the ingredients of the offence(s) for which the accused person was charged. The evidence required to prove the offences and rebut the presumption of innocence of the accused would be direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, or the confessional statement of the accused person. It must be noted here, however, that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof beyond every shadow of doubt or proof to the guilt. The burden is discharged where all the essential ingredients of the offence charged have been established or proved by the prosecution through credible, compelling, conclusive and reliable evidence.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
ROLE OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN RAPE CASES – ESTABLISHING INJURY TO PRIVATE PARTS
The Appellant has misunderstood the role of medical evidence in rape cases. While a medical report is not always essential, especially in rural settings, it becomes important when the accused denies the offence. In such circumstances, the Court is encouraged to look into a medical report so as to confirm injury to the private part or other parts of the body of the rape victim. In other words, the intendment of a medical report is to establish injury sustained to the private part, i.e. the vagina, or any other part of the body of an alleged rape victim and nothing more. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND PENETRATION – RUPTURED HYMEN AS INDICATION OF VAGINAL PENETRATION
The medical report in the instant case indicated that a ruptured hymen could suggest vaginal penetration, effectively pointing towards the commission of sexual intercourse. In my respectful view, this finding supports the conclusion of penetration which is the most important ingredient in proof of the offence of rape.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
SUFFICIENCY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – VOLUNTARY CONFESSION AS GROUND FOR CONVICTION
Furthermore, the confessional statement (Exhibit B) even standing alone, is sufficient to ground a conviction if it was made voluntarily, clearly, and unequivocally. Taken together, the medical findings and the confession constitute compelling, legally sufficient evidence of rape. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
AGE OF CONSENT IN RAPE CASES – LEGAL INCAPACITY OF MINORS UNDER 14
Under Section 282(1)(e) of the Penal Code, any female below the age of 14 is deemed incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse, regardless of whether they appear to do so. This principle is further affirmed in Natsaha Vs State (2017) LPELR-42359(SC) and also Isa v. The Kano State (2016) LPELR-40011(SC) Pg. 10-11. In the latter case, this Court held that: ‘… the act of rape is by nature unlawful because the concept involves an aggressive carnal knowledge of a female without her consent. Consent in this context must be devoid of any form of external influence. A child who is under age is not however capable of giving consent. Rape by nature is grave, devastating and traumatic. It also reduces the totality of the victim’s personality. Several definitions given to rape are all characterized by an absence of consent as a common feature.’– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF RAPE – SLIGHTEST PENETRATION SUFFICIENT
The position of the law as was upheld by this Court in plethora of cases is that the most important and essential ingredient of the offence of rape is penetration. The Court will deem that sexual intercourse has taken place upon proof of penetration of the penis into the vagina and the slightest penetration of the penis, will be sufficient to constitute the act of sexual intercourse. Emission or the rupture of the hymen is unnecessary to establish the offence of rape.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN RAPE CASES – MEDICAL FINDINGS, TESTIMONY AND CONFESSION
On this issue, I agree with the Respondent that Exhibit A, the medical report, together with PW3’s testimony describing her harrowing experience and the pain she felt, strongly indicates that some degree of penetration, even if slight, occurred. In addition, the Appellant himself confessed in Exhibit B, the confessional statement admitting to the commission of the offence. These two exhibits (A and B) thus serve as corroborative evidence supporting one another and collectively linking the accused to the crime. Thus the medical findings, first-hand testimony, and the Appellant’s confession each independent, cogent, and mutually reinforcing, create a strong evidential foundation for establishing penetration.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
CORROBORATION IN RAPE CASES – NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT BUT JUDICIAL CAUTION ADVISED
Similarly, as a general rule, no corroboration is required for the evidence of a prosecutrix in a trial for the offence of rape. No law demands that a prosecutrix’s evidence must be corroborated for it to ground the conviction of an accused person standing trial for the offence of rape. The only caveat is that it is not safe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The Court is advised to warn itself of the inherent risk of conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. However, where there is enough evidence from which the trial judge can reach a decision, then there is no need to warn itself of the danger of acting on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
MINOR CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE – EFFECT ON PROSECUTION’S CASE
Learned counsel for the Appellant has vigorously argued that there are contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ evidence. Having carefully reviewed the record, it appears that what counsel describes as contradictions are in fact minor discrepancies primarily concerning dates. Such differences typically arise from normal human limitations, errors in observation, lapses in memory over time, or the mental trauma of shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Importantly, for contradictions to affect a criminal case, they must relate to a material issue, one that impacts the substance of the offence. Minor discrepancies that do not affect essential elements are legally immaterial and pose no threat to the prosecution’s case. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
VARIATIONS IN WITNESS TESTIMONY – ENHANCEMENT OF CREDIBILITY
Where witnesses recount the same event with slight variations, it often enhances credibility and clearly reflects the ordinary human memory. As the Court observed in many cases, if the testimonies of witnesses were exactly identical, that may very well strongly suggest coaching or collusion. In this case, no such material contradictions exist. The testimonies, though varied in minor particulars, remain consistent on the key facts and elements of the offence. Consequently, there is no merit in the appellant’s contention, and his arguments fail to disrupt the significant weight of the prosecution’s evidence. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
RETRACTION OF CONFESSION – ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES
I conclude by reiterating the respondent’s observation. For nine years, the appellant (a 35-year-old man) served as a respected village head in Mahauta village, someone of high standing, whom people consulted for guidance. It strains credulity that such a person would allow a friend to trick him into confessing to a heinous crime like rape, fully aware of the gravity of the accusation. Were he truly innocent, he would have vigorously defended his honour before it was irreparably besmirched. In my view, the retraction of his confession is nothing more than an afterthought and will not avail the Appellant. A rational adult, cognisant of the consequences, would not falsely admit to raping anyone if he knew the allegation to be untrue. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
ESTABLISHMENT OF RAPE OFFENCE – MEETING BURDEN OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
After thorough review of all evidence, the prosecution has incontrovertibly met its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, having established each essential element of the offence of rape. I therefore hold that the Appellant did rape the prosecutrix and is guilty of the offence as charged. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Penal Code of Kano State (Sections 282, 283)
2. Evidence Act 2011 (Sections 35(2), 209(1), 209(3))
OTHER CITATIONS
