Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Natasha Vs. State (2017) CLR 4(g) (SC)

Judgement delivered on April 28th 2017

Brief

  • Rape
  • Admissibility of Evidence
  • Non est Factum
  • Alibi
  • Corroborative evidence
  • Grounds of appeal
  • Section 30(6) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 209(1) of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 209(3) of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 283 of the Penal Code
  • Section 39(c) of Penal Code
  • Section 282(1)(e) of the Penal Code

Facts

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower Court, in appeal No. CA/K/149/C/2012 delivered on 8th January 2013, affirming appellant's conviction and sentence by the Kano State High Court, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court, for the offence of rape contrary to Section 283 of the Penal Code. A brief summary of the facts on which the appeal revolves is given below.

To prove the offence against the appellant, the prosecution called three witnesses and tendered three exhibits. The three witnesses called by the prosecution are PW1, the prosecutrix, PW2 the victim's father and PW3, Corporal Faruk Ahmed, the police investigation officer through whom exhibit A, appellant's extra-judicial confessional statement, exhibit B, the hospital registration card of the prosecutrix and exhibit C, the medical report issued by the hospital after examining the prosecutrix, were tendered. All the exhibits were tendered and admitted without objection

The appellant, without calling any other witness, testified on his own behalf.

The trial Court in a considered judgment, dated 30th March 2012, convicted the appellant as charged and sentenced him to a ten year term of imprisonment.

Dissatisfied with the trial Court's decision, the appellant appealed to the lower Court on a notice filed on 21st May 2015 containing nineteen grounds. The dismissal of his appeal on 8th January 2013 informs the instant appeal to this Court on fifteen grounds filed on 16th January 2013.

Issues

  • 1.
    Whether the Court of Appeal was right on the conclusion regarding the rules of inconsistency, discrepancy and contradictions in the evidence of...
    Read More