LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Identification of Deceased – Proof of Identity – Whether Identification to Medical Doctor Essential
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the identity of the deceased was at no time in doubt whether before or after he was shot dead by the first appellant, and the deceased died on the spot at the scene of crime as a result of the gun shot injuries he sustained, and the cause of death was never put in issue by the appellants at any time during their trial, there is proper identification of the deceased and failure to identify the body to the medical doctor at post-mortem examination is not fatal to the conviction.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Alarape & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-872000(SC) at pp. 29–30; Paras D–A.
"Where the identity of the deceased was at no time in doubt whether before or after he was shot dead by the first appellant, and the deceased died on the spot at the scene of crime as a result of the gun shot injuries he sustained, and the cause of death was never put in issue by the appellants at any time during their trial, there is proper identification of the deceased and failure to identify the body to the medical doctor at post-mortem examination is not fatal to the conviction."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Identification of the deceased need not be made to a medical doctor at post-mortem. If identity was never in doubt—e.g., the deceased died at the scene, witnesses knew him, and the accused never disputed identity—failure to formally identify the body to the doctor is not fatal. The prosecution must still prove identity beyond reasonable doubt, but this can be done through other evidence (eyewitnesses, admissions, circumstantial evidence). The medical doctor’s role is to determine cause of death, not to identify the body. The defence cannot raise identity for the first time on appeal if it was never an issue at trial. The principle prevents technical acquittals where identity is undisputed.