MICHEAL OLOYE v. THE STATE
(2014)LCN/6873(CA)
RATIO
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROOF HIS CASE BEYOND DOUBT
The requirement that the prosecution must proof beyond reasonable doubt was given a human face in the case of Moses Jua v. The State (2010) 43, WRN 1 @ pages 24-25 by my lord Niki Tobi JSC as follows:-
“while our adjectival law places on the prosecution the duty to prove a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution his not the duty to prove the case beyond all shadow of doubt…the court can convict an accused person the moment the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt and proof beyond all shadow of doubt do not mean the same thing. The latter places a heavier burden on the prosecution a burden which is not known to our adjectival law”
Applying this definition to the decision under review, the learned trial Judge examined the evidence of the accused person/the Appellant, the content of Exhibits A, A2, B & B2 in comparism with the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution where also the victims and found that the evidence of the accused “in almost every material particular confirms the case of the prosecution” page 59 of the record.
The learned trial Judge held that when the confessional statement of the accused are subjected to the test for admissibility, it is crystal clear that the confessions are true and positive and can be relied upon. (refers Dibie v. The State (2007) 3 SC (Pt.1) 176, Idowu v. The State 3 NSCQR 96)
In law, the testing and weighing in the evaluation of evidence placed before a court is usually done on an imaginary scale. It is not a tangible or physical thing which can be held in the hand. Thus, when a learned trial Judge declares that he has carefully examine and perused the evidence and Exhibits placed before it, it means that it has used the imaginary judicial scale in weighing such evidence and materials placed before it and that is what constitute judicious consideration. The judgment of the learned trial Judge discloses a good knowledge of the case before the court clearly indicative of a full evaluation.
Once evidence particularly documentary evidence have been evaluated by a trial court and passed on to this court, this Court is in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate and adduced probative value to such documents. In this appeal the evidence, the testimonies of the witnesses as recorded by the learned trial Judge and the Exhibits being the confessional statement of the Appellant have been placed before the Court. The learned trial Judge performed his primary duty of evaluating and adducing weigh to the evidence placed before it. I find no perversion, no error in the said exercise. There is therefore no justification to interfere with the conclusion and holding of the learned trial Judge. Establishing or proving a point or a case beyond reasonable doubt is an aberration, it is an untenable ideal.
Indeed, nothing done by fallible man is beyond a shadow of doubt. No doubt, a very high standard is required in the proof of criminal matters, because the liberty and life of humans are always in issue. Per MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A
