As such, it will be wilting to prove a criminal case beyond any shadow of a doubt. For as long as we are on this side of life, we are limited to grasp the total truth of what transpired in a matter. In fact, there cannot probably be any proof that can be beyond all doubts or shadow of doubt. Contrary, when there is any doubt in the course of proving any ingredient of the offence the doubt will be resolved in favour of the Defendant which will lead to his exculpation as that will mean that the prosecution has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.įurthermore, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If these vital ingredients are proven by clear and compelling evidence to the satisfaction of the Court, then the persecution has successfully proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. See Idemudia v State FWLR (PT.55) 549 at 564, Akpan v State (2001) FWLR (Pt.56) 735 Madu Vs. (c) that the accused intended to either kill the victim or grievously harm. (b) that the death was caused by the accused For instance, if an accused is charged with a homicide (murder), the prosecution must prove that: What then is Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt? The Supreme Court, in a plethora of cases, defined the principle to mean the standard which the prosecution must meet in order to successfully find the accused guilty of a crime. This is because, there is the presumption of innocence in favour of the Defendant, by virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), as he has no responsibility in law to prove his innocence. It is pertinent to state that this legal burden does not shift if the prosecution must secure conviction. As such, if an individual is being accused of committing a crime, the prosecution has the onus of adducing clear and credible evidence showing the culpability of the accused to the alleged offence. This resonates with the landmark principle of law that who asserts must prove.
In criminal cases, the legal burden is entirely on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Defendant. This has been given statutory provision in Section 135 of the Evidence Act.
To determine the guilt of the accused or secure a conviction in a criminal case, there has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, I know that proofs are important in both civil and criminal cases.
It has to be….woo, I really don’t know😃.
0 kommentar(er)
