prosecutrix testified during cross examination that she started living with the
Accused and his family at the end of 2014 and when she was re-examined
she said that the period of the year could be December, 2014.
Counsel submitted that it is not possible for the Accused to be responsible for
the child of the prosecutrix who came to live with him at the end of 2014.
Also Counsel argued that PW2 admitted during cross examination that one
Foday Ceesay told her inside his house that she was pregnant and that there
was no evidence of premature delivery by the prosecutrix neither was there
medical evidence ascribing the paternity of the child born by the proscutrix
to the Accused.
Counsel also contended, that all the doubts created by the prosecution
evidence should be resolved in favour of the Accused. The cases of KALU V.
STATE (1998)4 NWLR (Pt. 110)455 were cited in support.
On this element, the Learned prosecution Counsel, M. Singhateh Esq.
submitted that the prosecutrix testified that she slept in the inner room
while the Accused slept in the parlour with his 1st wife and that was when
the Accused had sexual intercourse with her. That she noticed blood and felt
pains. That this piece of evidence was consistent creditable, reliable and was
not shaken under cross examination. She cited the cases of OGILNBAYO V.
STATE (2007)2 NCC PAGE 351 RATIO 8 & IKO V. STATE (2001)14
NWLR (Pt. 732) on penetration being the essential element of the offence
of rape. Counsel finally submitted on this element that the fact that the
prosecutrix was pregnant and put to birth a baby while still living with the
Accused was sufficient proof of penetration.
In relation to the element of sexual intercourse taking place without the
consent of a girl or a woman, defence counsel submitted that rape means a
forcible sexual intercourse with a girl or a woman without her consent. That
penetration is the most important ingredient of rape. She cited the case of
IKO V. STATE (supra).
On the 3rd element of the Accused being the person who committed the
crime, defence Counsel submitted that the Accused denied having sex with
PW2 in exhibits A and B and, in his testimony on oath. That the prosecution
did not call any eye witness who saw the Accused rape PW2 and the record
JUDGMENT – THE STATE VS MUSA KEITA 27/7/2016
Page | 4