Proof Of Criminal Proceeding

In a criminal prosecution, the required standard is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal trial has been succinctly enshrined in Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, which provides as follows:
a) If a commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding, civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But it is trite that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond shadow of doubt. When the ingredient of any particular offence the accused is charged with has been proved then the prosecution is said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. See Sani V the Sate (2015) LPELR 24818 SC.
In Alex Ivwighre V State CA/B/338/2017, it was alleged that the accused person/appellant and one other broke into the house of Emamo Timi James and demanded for the keys to her husband’s motorcycle. It was stated that they forcefully collected her handset and dragged her to an uncompleted building behind Erhijere Primary School, where the appellant raped her. He was convicted and his appeal was dismissed.
In a charge of rape, the onus of proof is on the prosecution to establish by evidence the following facts.
1. That the accused had intercourse with the prosecutrix.
2. That the act of sexual intercourse was done without her consent or the consent was obtained by fraud, force, threat, intimidation, deceit or impersonation.
3. That the prosecutrix was not the wife of the accused.
4. That the accused had the Mens rea, the intention to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent or that the accused acted recklessly not caring whether the prosecutrix consented or not.
5. That there was penetration. See Posu & Anor V. The State (2011) 3 NWLR P.393.
The law is settled that the commission of a crime can be proved in any of the following ways;
a) Confessional evidence, this is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. Section 29 (1) of the Evidence Act. 2011, provides that “In any proceeding, a confession made by a defendant may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this section.”
b) Direct or eye witness evidence, this is evidence that directly proves a key fact.
c) Circumstantial evidence; This evidence relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact for circumstantial evidence to support or ground a conviction, it must not only be cogent, complete, and unequivocal., but compelling and must lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused and no one else is responsible for the murder of the deceased.

By: Nkechi Bright Ewere