Whether it is Enough for a Trial Judge to Say that He Believed a Witness Without Proper Evaluation of the Evidence Before Him

CASE TITLE: AINA v. STATE OF LAGOS (2026) LPELR-83642(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2026

PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE

LEAD JUDGMENT: FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the Offence of Defilement.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, sitting in the Ikeja Judicial Division in SUIT NO. ID/7592C/2018 BETWEEN THE STATE OF LAGOS AND SEUN AINA delivered on the 28th of September, 2021 wherein the Appellant was charged and convicted on a one-count charge bordering on defilement of a child contrary to Section 137 of the Criminal Law, Chapter C17, Vol. 3, Laws of Lagos State, 2015, and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment without an option of fine.

The case of the Respondent as presented before the trial Court, is that the complainant (the victim’s mother) and the Appellant resided within the same compound. The house is owned by the Appellant’s sister. The Appellant lived with her sister in her own flat.

On the 3rd of January, 2018, while the complainant was engaged in a conversation with her former employer, she suddenly heard the cry of her 15-month-old child (the victim). She saw the baby with the Appellant and questioned him on what he had done to the baby. The Appellant denied any wrongdoing, stating instead that the child had picked up a plastic object and was crying.

The complainant held and slapped the Appellant. A crowd gathered, during which the Appellant’s mother struck the complainant with a broom. Upon examining her child, she discovered that one side of the baby’s diaper was open.

​The matter was reported at the Ijede Police Station. The complainant was thereafter referred to the General Hospital, Ijede, for medical examination of the child. Further medical tests were also conducted at the Mirabel Centre, the results of which indicate that the victim was defiled.

It is further the case of the Respondent that the Appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim on two separate occasions, but a formal report was made only on the incident of 3rd of January, 2018.

The Appellant denied the allegations made against him.

The Appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment hence this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

1. Whether the Learned trial Judge was right in convicting the Appellant, taking into consideration the oral testimonies of the Respondent’s witnesses and the contents of Exhibit A.

2. Having regard to the circumstance of the case, whether the reliance of the Court on the contents of Medical Report (Exhibit ‘A’) over Exhibit B’ to convict the Appellant was right.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was allowed and a verdict of discharge and acquittal was entered in favour of the Appellant.

RATIOS:

• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF DEFILEMENT: Principles of law with respect to the offences of defilement and rape
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- DOUBT: Effect of doubt in criminal proceedings/whether doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused
• EVIDENCE- PROOF: Ways of proving the commission of a crime
• EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of trial judge to evaluate evidence and the procedure for evaluation of evidence; circumstance(s) in which the Court of Appeal will/will not interfere with evaluation by trial Court
• EVIDENCE- CORROBORATION/CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE: Nature of evidence required as corroboration for the offence of rape
• EVIDENCE- MEDICAL EVIDENCE: Whether medical evidence is essential in all cases of rape; duty of Court to evaluate same when tendered before it
• EVIDENCE- MEDICAL EVIDENCE: Circumstance where medical evidence would be indispensable
• EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Whether it is enough for a trial judge to say that he believed a witness without proper evaluation of the evidence before him

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol