LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Proof of Guilt – Benefit of Doubt – Where Contradictions Established
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where contradictions and inconsistencies are established, the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt so created.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Dogo & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-442000(SC) at p. 12; Paras B–C.
"Where such contradictions and inconsistencies are established, then the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt so created."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case create reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. The principle reflects the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Not every contradiction creates doubt—only those that are material and affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Minor or trivial inconsistencies may be ignored. The court must evaluate whether the contradictions undermine the prosecution’s case. If they do, the accused must be acquitted. The benefit of doubt is a constitutional right. The principle ensures that convictions are not based on unreliable or conflicting evidence.