CASE TITLE: JULIUS v. STATE (2019) LPELR-48491(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders on the Offence of Rape.
FACTS
This is an appeal against the judgment of Ekiti State High Court delivered by Hon. Justice J. O. Adeleye on 30th day of June 2017.
The Appellant (JOHN JULIUS) was arraigned before the trial Court on a two-count charge of rape and assault contrary to Section 358 and 352 of the Criminal Code Law, Cap C16 Laws of Ekiti State of Nigeria, 2012 respectively.
On arraignment, he pleaded “Not Guilty” to all the charges and the case proceeded to trial.
It was the case of the Respondent (THE STATE) that the Appellant raped and assaulted one Alice Ozar, a 40 years old woman at Oke-Imesin Road, Efon Alaaye Ekiti on 16th July 2016.
The Appellant in his defence denied committing the said offences and alleged that he was set up by the Alice Ozar. He contended that at the time of the alleged crime the Appellant was 17 years old boy in search of a job to enable him to raise money for school fees. That in his search, he got engaged by Alice Ozar, to work on her farm. That after the close of work, Alice Ozar refused to pay him for his labour and instead accused him of raping and assaulting her.
The case was first reported to the Urhobo Progressive Union at Efon Alaaye. The Appellant denied the allegation and called for the Urhobo deity (Ayelala) to be used to swear but Alice Ozar declined. After few days Alice Ozar reported to the police at Efon Alaaye – Ekiti where the Appellant was subsequently arrested and charged to Court.
The trial court in its judgment convicted and sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment on the offence of rape while discharging and acquitting him on the offence of assault.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court the Appellant filed this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Appellant distilled the following issues:
- Whether the trial Court was right in Convicting and sentencing the Defendant/Appellant to life imprisonment when the element of penetration was not proved.
- Whether the Trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the Defendant/Appellant to life imprisonment without an option of a fine where the evidence placed before the Court were not properly evaluated which made the judgment of the Court to be perverse.
The Respondent formulated a lone issue viz:
Whether the Trial Court was not right when it held that the Respondent proved the ingredients of Rape beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.
DECISION/HELD
In a unanimous decision, the appeal was found meritorious and was thus allowed. The Judgment of the Trial Court was set aside. The accused was therefore discharged and acquitted.
RATIOS:
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF RAPE: What the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction for the offence of rape and effect of failure to do so
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF RAPE: Essential ingredients of the offence of rape
WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE SAYING…
Lawpavilion has made my work more efficient and swift.
~Hon Justice Ebele Egumgbe
