SHOCKING! Suspected Rapist Regains Freedom After Undressing Toddler & RAPING Her During Night Vigil; See Why Court Freed Him
A man simply identified by the name, Adeyemi Adejumo who was apprehended and accused of having unlawful carnal knowledge of a toddler in church during night vigil service, precisely 2 years of age has regained freedom after been cleared of all charges and released by the presiding magistrate, Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Ikeja Sëxual Offenses and Domestic Violence Court in Lagos state.
However, the judge pronounced before the court that, the prosecuting attorney was quite unable to prove that the accused, Adejumo was guilty of defiling the victim, adding that there’ s absolutely no evidence that the defendant and minor were engaged in sëxual activity as as a result of this, he was set free.
” I maintain that the mother was a vital witness but her failure to testify culminated in the prosecution’ s circumstantial evidence narrative. To have a conviction, circumstantial evidence must be compelling, complete and unequivocal” .
” The medical doctor (prosecution witness one) did not identify the defendant as the perpetrator and did not say that the forceful blunt penetration was by the pênis of the defendant. The doctor admitted that no semen attributable to the defendant was harvested” , he emphasized strongly.
In addition, the second witness presented by the witness, who appears to be the investigating police officer, disclosed that the defendant refuted the accusation and declared himself innocent of the charges leveled against him both in police custody and during his arraignment before the court.
” The fact that he ran away from a police station is insufficient proof that he committed the crime. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence the the prosecution relied on is not compelling, it is not complete and it is not unequivocal” , the judge clarified.
Furthermore, the judge pointed out that everyone accused of a crime should be considered innocent until and until proven guilty in accordance with Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, adding that the prosecuting attorney had an obligation to establish facts on the case but all evidences were based on presumption not evidence based.
” In this case, the prosecution could not prove the defilement charge beyond reasonable doubt, and it is better for nine guilty persons to go free than one innocent person to be wrongly convicted” .
” Thus, while the guilty may escape today, he might not escape tomorrow, and the society has a chance in the future to settle scores with him, but when an innocent person suffers from a mistake in the execution of criminal justice, there is no real chance of reversing what has been done” .
” I must, therefore, resolve the issue for determination in favour of the defendant and against the prosecution. I find the defendant not guilty and I acquit and discharge him” , Justice Oshodi concluded.
