LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Contradictions – Conflict Between Oral Evidence and Medical Evidence – Duty of Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The contradictions, which bring out the conflict between the assertions of the prosecution witnesses and Exhibit 'E' as to the cause of death were too serious to be ignored that the doubt thus created, I must say, should be resolved in favour of the accused.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Sylvester Umaru Onu, JSC, in State v. Ajie (2000) NLC-711999(SC) at p. 7; Paras B–C.
"The contradictions, which bring out the conflict between the assertions of the prosecution witnesses and Exhibit 'E' as to the cause of death were too serious to be ignored that the doubt thus created, I must say, should be resolved in favour of the accused."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Serious contradictions between oral testimony and medical evidence on cause of death create reasonable doubt, resolved in favour of the accused. The court cannot ignore material inconsistencies. If the conflict is fundamental to proving an essential element (causation), the prosecution fails to meet the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard. The court must weigh the totality of evidence, but unresolved material contradictions benefit the accused. This protects against conviction on conflicting or unreliable evidence. The duty is to identify whether contradictions are minor or substantial. Substantial contradictions on vital points mandate acquittal.