Whether it is Necessary to Have Corroboration in A Rape Trial

CASE TITLE: ODIONYE v. FRN (2024) LPELR-62923(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal emanated from the decision of the Federal High Court sitting in the Abuja Judicial Division (hereinafter the trial court), delivered by Hon. Justice S. U. Bature, J. on 15th December, 2016.

The PW2 (Ogechi Eke, who is also the mother of the victims) had testified that when she got back from work on the day of the incident, which was the 15th of October, 2015, she did not meet her children, including the PW3 and PW4, at home. Upon inquiry, she was told that the girls were at one Mama Chiboy’s house. PW2 went over to Mama Chiboy, who asked her if she knew any Chika Adionye and she said yes. Mama Chiboy told her to take her daughters home and check their vaginas. PW2 took the children home and upon examination of their vagina, she observed that it was red or reddish. PW2 went to one Chika Adionye (the appellant) and asked him what he did to her children. The appellant in reply asked her what her children said he did to them. After asking him the same question 3 times, the PW2 went back to her house.

The next day being Sunday, the PW2 went to the wife of the appellant and relayed to her what her children told her the husband did to them. The appellant’s wife said that she was not surprised and that the girls were not lying, as the appellant had done the same thing to her own senior sister’s daughter. She then advised the PW2 to go and lodge a complaint with the police to shake her husband. PW2 said she went home crying and confused. The next day being Monday, she went to her own husband and asked him if the children told him anything and he said no. She asked him to ask one Nancy (the PW3) some questions, which he did. After talking with PW3, he became so enraged by what they told him that he rushed to the appellant’s house with a stick, threatening to kill him. He further lodged a complaint with the police, who then arrested the said Chika Adionye (appellant). The police, along with the PW2’s husband, the appellant and the girls, all went to the hospital, where an examination was conducted and doctor’s report confirming penetration of the girls was issued. PW2 later went and complained to NAPTIP, who finally preferred the instant charges against Chika Adionye, the defendant/appellant.

The trial Court convicted the appellant in its judgment. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed against the same in the instant appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issues formulated by the appellant in the determination of the appeal, thus:

1. Whether the prosecution proved the offences before the trial Court beyond reasonable doubt in view of the doubt established by the appellant before the trial Court?

2. Whether, having regard to the nature of the evidence of PW2 and PW5, the trial Court was right to have convicted the appellant relying on hearsay evidence.

3. Whether the trial Court gave a fair consideration and evaluation to the evidence adduced by the appellant and the witnesses in the conviction of the appellant?

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court was affirmed.

RATIOS:

• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF RAPE: Nature of the offence of rape
• EVIDENCE- STANDARD OF PROOF: Standard of proof in criminal cases
• EVIDENCE- CORROBORATION/CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE: Whether it is necessary to have corroboration in a rape trial
• EVIDENCE- HEARSAY EVIDENCE: Meaning of hearsay evidence
• WORDS AND PHRASES- “CORROBORATION”: Meaning of “corroboration”

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol