PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Where death results from the very act of ravishment, the act and the purpose are one and the same thing. In such circumstances, in the absence of evidence that the act of ravishment was of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life, the proper conviction is for manslaughter and not murder. There must be evidence that the act of ravishment was of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life; the mere tender age of the victim, without more, is not sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that the act was likely to endanger human life.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ogundare, JSC (with whom Wali, Ogwuegbu, Iguh and Uwaifo, JJSC concurred), in Idowu v. State (2000) NLC-1931999(SC) at pp. 20–21; Paras B–D, A–C.
"Where death results from the very act of ravishment, the act and the purpose are one and the same thing. In such circumstances, in the absence of evidence that the act of ravishment was of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life, the proper conviction is for manslaughter and not murder. There must be evidence that the act of ravishment was of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life; the mere tender age of the victim, without more, is not sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that the act was likely to endanger human life."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Where death results from rape itself, the act and unlawful purpose are identical. To convict of murder under Section 316(3), the prosecution must prove the act was objectively likely to endanger life. The victim’s tender age alone is insufficient; there must be additional evidence—such as the manner of assault, use of force, or violence—showing the act was life-endangering. Without such evidence, the proper conviction is manslaughter under Section 317. This ensures that not every death resulting from an unlawful act automatically constitutes murder; the degree of risk matters.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE

Joseph Idowu v. The State