• Jn the case of MATANMI & ORS VS DADA & ANOR 2013 CPE~R
19929_(SC) IT WAS ST ATED
·' Unchallenged evidence is deemed to be co"ect
and be .acted upon by the court".
The evidence was clear. There were many . other tenants within the
premises . Even the landlord could not make himself available for interview.
The ·only reason why the Defendaul was be,ng suspected was that he was the
security man in charge . I_n deed all the prosecution witnesses were clear that
they were just suspecting the Defendant.
Incidentally, there was no clear positive evidence to make the suspicious
shift to proof at all. It remained suspicious. It is settled, that suspicion, no
matter _how strong cannot consti~te proof beyc,nd reasonable doubt. See the
case ot
·
STATE VS OGBUBUNJO 2001
13 \VRN 1.
lt is human that the Defendant who ,vas the security man should in the
circumstances have a first line suspicion . But in the absence of any further
evidence , the suspicion remained suspicion . As I had stated earlier, the alleged
suspects who were alleged aided, were not even shown to be in existence at all.
Obviously , the Defendant is entitled to a benefit of doubt.
lt is for the above reasons that l come to the irresistible conclusion that
prosecution really and · obviously f<}iled to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt. The lone issue is so resolved. ·
In consequence, th~ Defendant Mr. Paul Mathew is hereby discharged
~~~~~=~l
rN
.
(}1~~~
J?<'f' ,
~J=C\ O.~;..etkLU.
~ ~\-) cl 9 t ~~ ·~ ·
~ 'fD\p~ ~ ~ 9'~ 'L9--IJ
;/p
0
n
Judge .
~
The Defendant is present
Parties -
Appearances -
;'-1/GH CIJllr~T
:\Jf
C:~ ; c.
i
2t)!~(.7-.0..t.t_'.
I t"" ' •, ,
June2018
o4.
<>71
~ 00 f; rs-.
lJr{
E. V. Edu Esq., Senior State Counsel, for the ~
C. C. ~,~or Esq. for the Defendant is abs nt.
m
CER
~
fJ,r
l !:'¥l9P"J "/)-- JS I
1
msow1·n"'
'
W
·r.11,n NI .W010, Al¥#
C8PY
. t.:..
PR\~C\PALI ~tGlSTRt R