MUSA IKARIA V THE STATE

SUBJECT-MATTER

CRIMINAL LAW

LAW OF EVIDENCE

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT- CONDITIONS

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT-WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISHED

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT-DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION TO ADDUCE QUALITY EVIDENCE TO DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN

It is trite that the law requires the respondent to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The quality of evidence the respondent adduces invariably determines if that burden has been discharged. Once the burden has discharged, concurrent findings holding otherwise, being perverse, on review on a further appeal would be interfered with and set-aside.” PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JSC

 

Advertisements

STEPHEN JOHN & ANOR V. THE STATE

 SUBJECT MATTERCRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

 Confessional statementsright of judge to act on it even if the statement has been retracted

AppealDuty of an appellate court to determine the appeal before it

Criminal convictionIngredients to sustain a criminal conviction

EvidenceEffect of inconsistency or contradiction in evidence

Proof beyond reasonable doubt

 “The duty of an appellate court is to look at the judgment of a trial court vide the evaluation of the evidence before him, his findings based on such evidence to determine whether they are perverse or supported by the said evidence, and in addition the applicable principles of law. Once the appellate court has met the above requirements then it has discharged its duty to determine the appeal before itA. M. MUKHTAR JSC

Click here to view case