ONAFOWOKAN V. THE STATE

• Pages: 1101-1114

ONAFOWOKAN V, THE STATE



1101

ONAFOWOKAN V. THE STATE

5

ABEKE ONAFOWOKAN

V

10 THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

15



KAZEEM,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

10th July, 1987

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 78/1986

20



Criminal Law - Burden of proof of commission of crime - Criminal cases - on

the prosecution save for few e..vceptions - in civil or criminal matters standard

of proof to be beyond reasonable doitin - Courts should be sceptical of

non-production of independent witnesses for prosecution - Evidence of alibi -

Must be considered - Burden on prosecution to adduce more convicing contrary

25





evidence - findings of fact - proper approach is for trial court to make

appropriate findings on each specific issue - criminal law - meaning of no

onus of proof being on an accused person - proof of guilt - where any

doubt lingers in mind of court accused person

m

o

ist

have the benefit of

it and must be acquitted

30

Evidence - effect of declaring evidence of witness unreliable - number of witnesses

required to prove a case not

Jived -

Proof of a case not dependent on

number of witnesses.

35

ISSUES:

1.

On whom lies the burden of proving a crime in criminal cases?

2.

What is the standard of proof of the commission of a crime in criminal and civil

cases?

3.

How should a court treat evidence of alibi?

40





4_ What is the proper approach for a trial court to employ in dealing with findings

of fact?

5.

Whether a specific number of witnesses is required to prove a case.

6.

When can a case be said to have been fabricated.

FACTS:

45





The appellant's family and the family of P.W.1 were co-tenants at No. 23 Koseh

Street, Lagos. Pursuant to a dispute between the appellant's daughter, the 2nd ac-

cused at the trial, and P.W.3, the daughter of P W.1 a big fight developed which

involved the families of both women and as a result P.W.1 and some others were

injured. The following day, P.W.2 and the deceased (both children of P.W.1)

50





together with P.W.4 came to visit P.W.1. On noticing the injuries on P.W. 1, they

made enquiries and were informed by P.W.1. of the previous day's happenings.

Thereafter P.W.2, P.W.4 and the deceased proceeded to the appellant's apartment

to inquire about the misunderstanding. Once again a dispute arose and accord-

ing to the evidence of P.W.2, the 2nd accused poured hot oil on the deceased