Justice Rahman Oshodi of a Lagos Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court, Ikeja has sentenced a man, Peter Odu to life imprisonment, for the defilement of a 13-year old girl.
The convict , Odu was found him guilty of one count charge of defilement brought against him by the state government.
He was said to have committed the offence sometime in 2020, having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-years old girl (name withheld) at No. 25 Kayode Street, Ogba, Lagos.
The offence of defilement of a child against Odu is contrary to section 137 of the Criminal Law, Ch. C17, Vol. 3, Laws of Lagos State, 2015.
He pleaded not guilty to one count charge when he was arraigned on February 11, 2022 before the court.
The prosecution during trial called three witnesses. The PW1, a social worker, PW2 is the survivor and the PW3, Woman Sergeant Esther Sunday, the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) from Pen Cinema Police Station, who handled the initial stages of the investigation.
The defendant also called three witnesses for his defence.
However, while delivering judgment,
Justice Oshodi said that he has carefully considered the facts of the case and the evidence presented.
The court said that the prosecution proved the case of defilement beyond reasonable doubt. He also said that he held the prosecution’s comments and the impact of convict actions on the young victim.
” The crime strikes at the heart of our society’s duty to protect its most vulnerable members. At the tender age of twelve, the prosecutrix was placed in your family’s care, far from her home and bereft of her parents’ protection. Instead of providing her with safety and guidance, you exploited her vulnerability for your desires.
” The physical and emotional trauma you have inflicted on this child is immeasurable and likely to have long-lasting effects on her life.
The law recognises the severity of such offences against children, and this court must enforce those laws to their fullest extent. Section 137 of the Criminal Law mandates life imprisonment for the defilement of a child, reflecting society’s utter condemnation of such acts.
*Therefore, according to the law and considering the grievous nature of your crime, I now sentence you, Peter Odu, to life imprisonment. You shall also be registered as a sex offender.
“This court hopes that this sentence will serve not only as punishment for your actions but also as a deterrent to others who might contemplate similar heinous acts against children. May it also provide some measure of justice and closure for victims.”
The court said that he hope the convict will use his time in custody to reflect and reform.
During trial, the defendant maintaining is innocence, the defence called three
witnesses. The defendant testified as DW1, denying the allegations
against him.
He was cross-examined with a certified copy of his extra-judicial statement dated 9 June 2021 (Exhibit F). His mother, Mrs Dorathy Odu, the prosecutrix’s guardian in Lagos, took the
stand as DW2. Finally, as DW3, the court heard from Mrs Blessing
Chukwudike, the prosecutrix’s aunt, who had initially arranged for
the prosecutrix to live with the Odu family.
The court said the the story of the young prosecutrix, in this case, is one marked by loss, vulnerability, and alleged exploitation.
“Her mother passed away, leaving her without maternal care, and her father’s whereabouts remain unknown. In the wake of her mother’s death, the prosecutrix found herself in the care of her aunt, Mrs Chukwudike (DW3), in Imo State.
Mrs Chukwudike arranged for the prosecutrix to live with Mrs Odu
(DW2) in Lagos. At the tender age of 12, the prosecutrix left her rural home to work as a domestic help at 25 Kayode Street, Ogba, Lagos, which the prosecution says is the crime scene. The defence does not dispute this part of her evidence.
It was in this new environment that the prosecutrix alleges the traumatic events unfolded. In her testimony, she recounted two incidents of sexual abuse by the defendant, the son of her guardian.
Her account of these events is both direct and disturbing:
“In 2019, he the defendant was staying with us in the house, and first of all, he first raped me, and he said, I should
not tell anyone. So, I didn’t tell anyone. In 2020, he left the house before 2020. So, one day he came to visit his mother,
and nobody was around the time he came to the house.
“So, I was lying down in the parlor, so he started touching my body
and pulling my cloth. So, he brought out his penis, and put it in my vagina, blood started rushing when he did it.”
The defence argues that the prosecutrix said she did not know the
meaning of “menstrual cycle”. However, the blood was not the result
of menstruation, as she stated in her evidence-in-chief.
The prosecutrix’s journey to reporting these alleged incidents was
not straightforward. After the second incident, she confided in another girl named Mercy living in the house. Mercy encouraged her to tell Mrs Odu, but the prosecutrix claims that when she did, Mrs Odu made a phone call and took no further action.
The situation came to light when the prosecutrix, desperate to
escape, told her teacher at school that she wanted to return to her village. When pressed for a reason, she revealed the alleged abuse: “So, when she (my teacherl said education was important, I
now opened up to her that my madam’s son is raping me in the house, that I cannot stay there again. So, she quickly went to tell the headmistress, the headmistress now called the
social worker.”
This disclosure set the events leading to the defendant’s arrest in motion. In collaboration with a social worker, the school authorities orchestrated a plan to apprehend the defendant.
The judge held that he believe the prosecutrix that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her. The testimonies of the IPO and the social
worker donate compelling circumstantial evidence to support it.
The court further said he considered the defence’s rebuttal against the preceding. The prosecutrix’s aunt, provided testimony that significantly contradicted the prosecutrix’s account and raised
questions about the allegations against the defendant.
