MICHAEL TAKIM v. THE STATE
(2014) LCN/7036(CA)
RATIO
CRIMINAL LAW AND EVIDENCE: PROOF OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE
It is well settled that for the prosecution to succeed in proof of a criminal offence, there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. It simply means that there is credible evidence upon which the court can safely convict, even if it is upon the evidence of a single witness. In Afolalu v State (2010) 6-7 MJSC 187, the Supreme Court, per Mohammed JSC said: “The law is quite clear on the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction for any criminal offence by virtue of Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act. Therefore if on the entire evidence adduced before a trial Court, that Court is left with no doubt that the offence was committed by the accused person, that burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is discharged and the conviction of the accused person will be upheld even if it is on credible evidence of a single witness as happened in the case at hand. On the other hand, where on the totality of the evidence, a reasonable doubt is created, the prosecution would have failed in its duty to discharge the burden of proof which the law vests upon it thereby entitling the accused person the benefit of the doubt resulting in his discharge and acquittal. See Alonge v. Inspector-General of Police (1959) SCNLR. 576; Fatoyimbo v. Attorney-General of Western Nigeria (1966) W.N.L.R. 4 and The State v. Danjuma (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 506) 512.”
Therefore, where all the ingredients of an offence have been clearly established and proved by the prosecution, then the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt. See: Osetola vs. State (supra); Alabi vs. State (1993) 7 NWLR (PT 307) 511 at 523; Ajayi vs. State (2013) 2-3 MJSC (PT 1) 59. Onyekachi A. Otisi, J.C.A.
