HABIBU V. STATE (2024) 6 NWLR (PT. 1935) 483
ON INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE OF RAPE
e with a woman in any of the following circumstances:
(a)against her will;
(b)without her consent;
(c) with her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death or of hurt;
(d) with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married;
(e) with or without her consent, when she is under fourteen years of age or of unsound mind.
HABIBU V. STATE (2024) 6 NWLR (PT. 1935) 483
ON MOST IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF OFFENCE OF RAPE
In the offence of rape, penetration is the most vital and essential ingredient. The degree of penetration or its duration is immaterial. In this case, PW2 gave unchallenged evidence of penetration, and her evidence was corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and PW3. Therefore, the findings of the Court of Appeal that there was penetration and that the evidence of the prosecutrix was corroborated are impregnable. [Natasha v. State (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1396) 38 referred to.] (Pp. 529, paras. E-H; 532, paras. A-B).
HABIBU V. STATE (2024) 6 NWLR (PT. 1935) 483
ON HOW TO PROVE OFFENCE OF RAPE AND WHETHER MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS MANDATORY
Medical evidence in rape cases is not sine qua non for the conviction an accused person. Even in murder or homicide cases, the tendering or calling of medical evidence is not compulsory. What is required is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony, confessional statement and/or circumstantial evidence. As long as that is done, the accused person cannot complain because it does not lie in the accused person’s mouth to dictate to the prosecution how to conduct its case. Moreover, medical report is usually necessary where the accused person denies raping the prosecutrix, but even when the commission of the offence is denied, the absence of a medical report does not spell doom for the case of the prosecution as each case must be considered within its peculiar circumstances.