Judgment
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Appellant filed this appeal against the decision of Jigawa State High Court in Charge No. JDU/52C/A/2019, delivered on 10th December, 2020 by Hon. Justice Musa Ubale wherein Appellant was convicted for rape, under Section 3 of the Penal Code (Miscellaneous Amendment) Law, 2014 of Jigawa State and sentenced to twenty-one years imprisonment.
At the lower Court, Appellant was accused as follows:- “That you Dauda Malam Mato ‘M’ aged 35 years of Tsangayar Yamma, Kangire Birnin Kudu Local Government on or about the 24th day of October, 2017, at Tsangayar Yamma Quarters, Birnin Kudu Local Government Area within Jigawa Judicial Division, called one Fa’iza Idris, aged about 10 years old to your friend’s room and had sexual intercourse with one Faiza Idris ‘f’ aged 10 years (sic) and you hereby (sic) committed the offence of rape punishable under Section 3 of the Penal Code (Miscellaneous Amendment) Law of Jigawa State of Nigeria, 2014.” Appellant was arraigned on 21/7/2020 when the charge was read and interpreted to him in Hausa Language and he said he understood the same and pleaded, Not Guilty.
After hearing the case and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, the trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence and said: “In Ezigbo Vs State (2012) LPELR – 7855 at Pp. 8-9, the Supreme Court held that “It is settled in law that for the prosecution to sustain a conviction against the appellant under Section 283 of the Penal Code Law and the following ingredient of the offence must be established by evidence.
A man is said to commit rape when he had sexual intercourse with a woman in any of the following circumstances….. (e) with or without her consent when she is under fourteen years of age or of unsound mind” Per Onnoghen, JSC The facts before this Court is the charge against the defendant for the rape of PW4, a ten year old girl and she testified that the defendant called her, bought her food, asked her to take the food to his room, as she entered he followed her, removed her wrapper and he removed his trouser and had sexual intercourse with her.
In his defence, DW1 the defendant testified that the prosecutrix had brought food, in his house and he bought the food and gave her money and left. But when he came out and saw her with PW2 vigilante people when they asked him he denied admitting that the prosecutrix was from his house until they beat him that he admitted but said he only bought food from her. Under cross-examination, the defendant testified that on the fateful night when the prosecutrix entered his house, his wife was not at home.
