LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Evaluation of Evidence – Material Contradictions Creating Reasonable Doubt Must Benefit the Accused
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence before a criminal court that cast reasonable doubt upon the guilt of the accused, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt and not convicted on unreliable evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Onuchukwu v. The State (1998) NLC-1041996(SC) at p. 11; Paras D–E.
"Where there are such contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence before a Criminal Court, such as to cast reasonable doubt upon the guilt of the accused person, such accused person should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be convicted on the basis of such unreliable evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Material contradictions create reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to benefit. The principle applies to criminal trials. The court must evaluate whether contradictions are material. Minor inconsistencies are not fatal. The rule prevents conviction on unreliable evidence. The prosecution must present a coherent case. The judge must resolve contradictions. The accused does not need to prove the contradictions; they need only raise them. The principle protects the accused’s right to a fair trial.