Evidence (2047)
In criminal trials, the standard required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not proof beyond any shadow of doubt. The two requirements are completely dissimilar. That is why the expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be employed conterminously with the expression "proof beyond any shadow of doubt. " The law has opted for the expression "proof beyond reasonable doubt, " Dibie v. State (2007) LPELR -941 (SC); Dimlong v. Dimlong [1998} 2 NWLR (Pt. 538) 381, 178; State v. Gwangwan (2015) LPELR-24837 (SC)
By the provisions of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 614, 2011, evidence which could be and is not produce is presumed to be unfavorable to the person who witholds it. Ogidiv. State (1998) 4 SCNJ 226 at 253 and Okparaji & Anor. v. Ohanu & Ors. (1999) 6 SCNJ 27 at 42 -48.
Abubakar Sale vs State [2015] 12 M. J. S. C [Po 54] Para. G
By virtue of the provisions of Section 169 of the· Evidence Act, 2011, when one person has either by virtue of an existing court judgment, deed or agreement, or by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed in any proceedings between himself and such person or such persons representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing.
Mabamije & Otto [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. III) [Pp. 48-49] Paras. G-A
