What is available in this case as a method to establish the culpability of the appellant is circumstantial evidence which can in certain situations be stronger than even an eye witness account. It is such that when the different pieces of evidence are taken altogether, there is this tie leading to the irresistible and compelling conclusion that the crime was committed and by no other than the accused. It can take on such a logical reading with the precision of mathematics that leaves no room for any other conjecturing possibility than that the crime for which the accused appellant was charged was committed by him and could not have been done by another. It is the efficiency of the circumstantial evidence that existed in this case that left the two Courts below without any resistance but to accept it as sufficient to sustain the conviction that is in line with what has become trite and reiterated by the Courts including the Apex Court and I shall for effect cite and quote the case of Amusa Opoola Adio & Anor v. The State (1986) 4 SC 194 at 219-220 as follows:
"How is a case proved beyond reasonable doubt? A case can be proved by direct oral evidence, if the testimonies of witnesses who saw and heard are believed; there will be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence can prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. The local case of Joseph Ogunbayode & Ors v. The Queen (1954) 14 WACA 458 (otherwise known as the Apalara Case) is an excellent example of proof beyond reasonable doubt based purely on inferences from circumstantial evidence. It is often said that witnesses can lie but circumstances do not, so in this sense circumstantial evidence affords better proof beyond reasonable doubt. But far above these two methods or proof the voluntary confession of guilt by an accused person if it is direct and positive and satisfactorily proved should occupy the highest place of authenticity when it comes to proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is why such a confession by itself alone is sufficient without further corroboration to warrant a conviction. And there cannot be such a conviction unless the trial Court is satisfied that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt."
The law is trite that a party must be consistent in the presentation of his case. See CHUKWUNYERE V. STATE (2017) LPELR-43725 (SC); AJIDE V. KELANI (1985) LPELR-302 (SC); COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF CUSTOMS & ORS V. GUSAU (2017) LPELR-42081 (SC); SUBERU V. STATE (2010) LPELR-3120 (SC); AGI V. PDP & ORS (2016) LPELR-42578 (SC).
THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY APPEAL The law is trite that the ground of appeal is the foundation of every appeal as it constitutes an Appellant’s complaint against the judgment appealed against. The ground of appeal also gives information of the precise nature of an Appellant’s complaint and ensures fairness to the other side: See SARHUNA V. LAGGA (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 455) 1617 @ 1636 (S.C.).
Where the defendant rests his case on the plaintiff’s case the consequence is that the unchallenged evidence is deemed to be true and correct: Akanbi v. Alao (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 118 (SC); NEP A v. Olagunju (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 602) 632 (CA). What follows next is the question: whether the unrebutted evidence has proved the allegations in respect of which the evidence was proffered? PER OLABISI, J.C.A .