Whether a Medical Report Must Be Tendered Through the Maker

CASE TITLE: MOHAMMED v. STATE (2022) LPELR-57348(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 25TH FEBRUARY, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE (MEDICAL EVIDENCE)

LEAD JUDGMENT: OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on the admissibility of a medical report.

FACTS

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division delivered on 23rd October 2017. 

The appellant had been arraigned before the High Court of Kano State with a charge of rape preferred against him. 

​The gist of the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was a lesson teacher to PW2 in her school. The appellant dropped PW2 home from school crying and unable to walk properly. Her mother asked her what happened to her and she told her mother that the appellant had put his manhood in her private part. The mother removed PW2’s trousers and pants and examined her private part. She saw it was swollen with sperm deposited on her thighs. She put a phone call to PW1 – the father of PW2 to explain to him what she had found out. The matter was later reported to the Headteacher who herself was present when PW1 was examining the private part of her daughter – PW2. The matter was reported to the Dawakin Kudu Police division and PW2 was taken to the hospital. The appellant was detained and his statement was duly obtained by the Police. The case was later transferred to the State CID where another statement of the appellant was obtained.

Upon arraignment, the charge was read to the accused and he pleaded not guilty. The case later proceeded to trial. The prosecution called five (5) witnesses to prove its case while the appellant testified and called the other three witnesses in his defence. At the trial, the appellant denied the allegation. He was later found guilty of the offence. He was convicted and sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment by the trial Judge.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court, hence he appealed to the Court of Appeal on three grounds of appeal. In its judgment delivered on 23rd October 2017, the Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal and the same was dismissed. The judgment of the Trial Court was then affirmed.

Further dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Apex Court determined the appeal based on a lone issue for determination viz:

Whether the lower Court was right to have affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt when the maker of the medical report – Exhibit B was not called as a witness.

DECISION/HELD

In the final analysis, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• EVIDENCE – MEDICAL EVIDENCE: Whether a medical report is admissible even if not tendered through the maker; procedure to be followed by Court upon admission of such report
• EVIDENCE – MEDICAL EVIDENCE: Duty of an accused person to demand the appearance of the maker of a medical report; effect of failure
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF RAPE: When would the offence of rape be said to have been committed

EVIDENCE – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to ground conviction; the condition for same