Issue:
Whether the lower court was right in affirming the judgment of the Trial Court which held that the prosecution proved the offence of rape as charge beyond reasonable doubt.
August 2025
Criminal Law & Procedure: Proof in criminal cases – onus on prosecution – whether require to proof case beyond reasonable doubt – nature of proof beyond reasonable doubt – the principle in Miller vs. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 372
Criminal law & Procedure: Proof beyond all reasonable doubt – meaning and nature thereof – the principle in Ikpong vs. State (2025) LPELR-80974 (SC)
Criminal Law: Rape – intendment of medical report – whether to establish the issue of penetration in the case of rape
Criminal law: Rape – medical evidence – where medical evidence is supported by evidence – whether appellant cannot discredit medical evidence
Criminal law: Rape – absence of consent of victim – where a girl of 12 years is raped – whether such a victim is incapable of giving consent – the principle in Natasha vs. State (2017) LPELR-42359(SC)
Criminal law: Rape – evidence of age of the prosecutrix not challenged by the appellant – whether court will take the evidence of age as proved
Criminal law: Rape – importance of penetration – whether rupture of the hymen or emission of semen is not necessary to prove rape
Criminal Law & Procedure: Rape – corroboration of evidence of prosecutrix – whether there is no law requiring the evidence of prosecutrix – duty on court to warn itself – whether can be dispensed in certain situations
Criminal Law & Procedure: Evidence of prosecution witnesses – where there are minor discrepancies therein – whether it is only substantial contradictions and not minor discrepancies that are material
Issue:
Whether the lower court was right in affirming the judgment of the Trial Court which held that the prosecution proved the offence of rape as charge beyond reasonable doubt.