MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - WAYS BY WHICH PROSECUTION CAN PROVE ITS CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

OKOH v. STATE [2014] ALL FWLR. PART 749. PG. 1138-39.

The court in the above case held:

"Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond every shadow of doubt. Once the proof of a case as offered by the prosecution drowns the presumption of innocence of the accused, the court is entitled to convict him although there could exist shadows of doubt. The moment the proof by the prosecution renders the presumption of innocence on the part of the accused useless and pins him down as the owner of the mens rea or actus reus or both, the prosecution has discharged the burden placed on it by Section 138(3) Evidence Act. "

"The prosecution in proof of its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt can do this by any or a combination of the following ways:

a. by confessional statement(s);
b. by circumstantial evidence; and
c. by evidence of eyewitnesses a.k.a. direct evidence."