Musa Natsaha V. The State (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower Court, in appeal No. CA/K/149/C/2012 delivered on 8th January 2013, affirming appellant’s conviction and sentence by the Kano State High Court, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court, for the offence of rape contrary to Section 283 of the Penal Code. A brief summary of the facts on which the appeal revolves is given below.

To prove the offence against the appellant, the prosecution called three witnesses and tendered three exhibits. The three witnesses called by the prosecution are PW1, the prosecutrix, PW2 the victim’s father and PW3, Corporal Faruk Ahmed, the police investigation officer through whom exhibit A, appellant’s extra-judicial confessional statement, exhibit B, the hospital registration card of the prosecutrix and exhibit C, the medical report issued by the hospital after examining the prosecutrix, were tendered. All the exhibits were tendered and admitted without objection

The appellant, without calling any other witness, testified

1

on his own behalf.

The trial Court in a considered judgment, dated 30th March 2012, convicted the appellant as charged and sentenced him to a ten year term of imprisonment.

Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s decision, the appellant appealed to the lower Court on a notice filed on 21st May 2015 containing nineteen grounds. The dismissal of his appeal on 8th January 2013 informs the instant appeal to this Court on fifteen grounds filed on 16th January 2013.

At the hearing of the appeal, parties on identifying their respective briefs filed and exchanged earlier, adopted same as their arguments for and against the appeal. The four issues distilled in the appellant’s brief settled by Nureni Jimoh Esq., read:-

“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right on the conclusion regarding the rules of inconsistency, discrepancy and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix rightly accepted the written statement allegedly written by the accused (Exhibit A) before the police and hold that the evidence of PW1 was sufficiently corroborated in this case. (Grounds II – XI).

2. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the prosecutrix has

2

proved the case of rape against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Grounds I, XII & XIV)

3. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the duty to prove alibi is on the accused person. (Ground XIII) and
4. Whether there was no breach of fair hearing when the lower Court failed to pronounce on the appeal against sentence made by the trial Court against the accused. (Ground XV).”

The similar but more concise and clearer issue formulated at page 5 of the respondents brief read:-

(1) Whether the inconsistency rule is applicable to the case of the appellant.