CORAM

PARTIES

---

ADEBIYI FAMAKINWA APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was charged with the offence of murder under Section 319(1) of Criminal Code Cap 30 Vol. II of the Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 1978 for having caused the death of one Chief Monday Sedera on 2nd April 2002, by stabbing the deceased with a knife, which caused injury to the deceased resulting in his death. It was the Prosecutions’ case that the Appellant came to the house of the deceased to challenge him in respect of allegation of mismanagement of money given to the Appellant by the brother of the deceased, in the course of which a fight ensued between the Appellant and the deceased. The dispute was reported to the Oba of the town who sent his Police orderly to invite the quarreling parties to his palace. While the deceased was on his way to the Oba’s palace with the police orderly and other relations of the deceased, the Appellant came from behind and stabbed the deceased with a knife causing him injuries, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The Appellant admitted stabbing the deceased but raised the defence of self defence. The trial court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court in allowing the Appellant’s appeal substituted the conviction for murder with that of manslaughter and sentenced the Appellant to 15 years imprisonment. The Appellant has further appealed to this Court against his conviction and sentence for the offence of manslaughter.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether after finding that the prosecution’s case at the trial Court was inconclusive and contradictory, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal ought to have resolved the doubt thereby created in favour of the Appellant and to discharge and acquit him rather than reduce his conviction from murder to manslaughter?

2. Whether from the evidence on record the Appellant is availed with the defence of self defence and thereby was entitled to discharge and acquittal rather than conviction for manslaughter?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CONVICTION IN A CHARGE OF MURDER – INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION IN A CHARGE OF MURDER

---

“In order to secure a conviction in a charge of murder under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap 30 Vol. ll of the Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria 1978, the prosecution must prove –
“(a) that the deceased had died;
(b) that the death was caused by the accused; and
(c) that the act or omission of the accused was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm as its probable consequence.”
See Ubani Vs The State (2003) 18 NWLR Pt. 581) 224, Uguru Vs The State (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt.771) 90 and Igabele Vs The State (2006) 6 NWLR 5 (Pt. 975) 100.” –

---

PROOF OF MURDER – STANDARD OF PROOF IN A CHARGE FOR MURDER

---

“It is also the law that in a charge of murder, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only that the act of the accused person could have caused the death of the deceased but that it actually did. If there is any possibility that the deceased died from other causes than the act of the accused, the prosecution has not established the case against the accused person. See Uguru Vs The State (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 771) 90. Also in every case where it is alleged that death has resulted from the act of the accused person, a casual link between the death and the act must be established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. See Oforlete Vs The State (2000) 12 NW LR (Pt.681) 415.” –

---

CHARGE OF MURDER – QUALITY OF EVIDENCE TO BE RELIED UPON TO ESTABLISH A CHARGE OF MURDER

---

“As for the quality of evidence to be relied upon to establish a charge of murder, the evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, it must establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The case of Aruna Vs The State (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt.155) 125 easily comes to mind on this requirement.” –

---

MANSLAUGHTER – MEANING OF MANSLAUGHTER

---

“A person who causes the death of another is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. In other words, manslaughter is the unintentional killing of a human being. Such a killing is not premeditated but accidental in the sense that it was not intentional. See Ejeka Vs The State (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt.819) 408.” –

---

DEFENCE OF SELF DEFENCE -NATURE OF THE DEFENCE OF SELF-DEFENCE

---

“The Law is well settled that the defence of self-defence, if successful, is a complete defence or answer to the charge of murder or manslaughter as in the instant case. See Baridam Vs The State (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt.320) 262, Kim Vs The State (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.233) 17 at 49 and Duru Vs The State (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.28l) 283 at 291-292. With regard to the duty of an accused person raising the defence of self defence in his trial for the offence of murder, the law is as stated by Iguh, JSC (as he then was) in Baridam Vs The State (1994)1 NWLR (Pt.320) 250 at 262 where he said-
“There can be no doubt that self defence in an appropriate case is a complete answer to a charge of murder or manslaughter. The Appellant, to avail himself of this defence, however, must show that his life was so much endangered by the act of the deceased that the only option that was open to him to save his own life was to kill the deceased. He must show that he did not want to fight and that he was at all material times prepared to withdraw.”
See also Stephen Vs The State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt.46) 987 and Iteshi Onwe Vs The State (1975) 9-11 S.C.23.”
–

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS – ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS

---

“It is important to note that as far as the rejection of the evidence of the Appellant on his attempt to set up a defence of self-defence is concerned, both the trial Court and the Court below are in complete agreement. This to my mind constitute concurrent findings of the two Courts which this Court would not ordinarily disturb. See Manawa Ogbodu Vs The State (1981) 2 NWLR (Pt.54) 20-

---

SELF-DEFENCE- INSTANCE WHERE SELF DEFENCE WILL AVAIL AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“Self-defence will only avail an accused person who reacted spontaneously to unprovoked attack in order to avoid or ward off the said attack against him and to defend himself from further attack: Chukwu V. The State (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.217) 255. Duru V. The State (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.281) 283 at 292; Kim V. The State (1992) 4NWLR (Pt.2331 17 at 49. Baridam V. The State (1994) 1NWLR (Pt.320) at 262, Regina V. Onyeamizu (1958) 1 NWLR 93 at 94-95.” –

---

OFFENCE OF MURDER – NATURE OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER

---

“Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code of Ondo State provides for the punishment for Murder. It reads
“319 (1). Subject to the provisions of this Section any person who commits the offence of murder shall be sentenced to death.
While Section 316 of the of the Criminal Code of Ondo State provides for the definition of Murder. A charge for Murder can be filed under Section 316 or 319 (1) supra but it is desirable that a charge for Murder is brought under Section 319(1) supra. In this case, the Appellant was charged under Section 319 (1) supra. To succeed the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the accused person which resulted in the death of the deceased falls within the circumstances in Section 316 of the Criminal Code Law, Cap 30. Laws of Ondo State.
Section 316 of the Criminal Code supra states that:
“316. Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully Kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say:-
(1) lf the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed, or that of some other person;
(2) lf the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous harms;
(3) lf death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
(4) lf the offender intends to do grievous harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such offence;
(5) lf death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering things for either of the purposes lost aforesaid;
(6) lf death is caused by willfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
OFFENCE OF MURDER – INSTANCES WHERE AN ACCUSED PERSON WOULD BE DISCHARGED AND ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER
Section 317 of the Criminal Code states that:
“317. A person who unlawfully kills another in such circumstances as not to constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter.
Akpabio v State (1994) 7NWLR (Pt.359) P.635 Queen v Jinobu (1961) vol 2NSCC p.280
An accused person who kills a person in any of the circumstances in Section 316 of the Criminal Code would be acquitted and discharged if he can show that he killed in self defence, or under provocation in which case he would be convicted for manslaughter. Killing in self defence is thus a complete defence to a charge of Murder.” –

 

---

CRIMINAL TRIALS – ON WHO LIES THE DUTY TO PROVE THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

---

“In criminal trials, the prosecution has a duty to prove the constituent elements of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt (though not to a mathematical or scientific certainty). See Miller v. Minister of Pension (1947)2 All ER 372 at 373; Agbo v. State (2006) 1 SC (pt 11) 73 at 74; State v. Onyeukwu 92004) 7 SC (Pt 1) at 31-32.” –

---

SELF DEFENCE – MEANING OF SELF-DEFENCE

---

“Self-defence and retaliation or fighting back do not mean the same thing, nor do they mean the same thing as accident. There is a very thin line between self-defence and fighting. However, a person defending himself does not want to fight but defends himself to avoid fighting. See R v. Knock (1877) 14 COX CCI; R v. Deana (1909) 2 Cr. App. R 75. A man who is retaliating to something done to him cannot be said to avoid fighting. If he is avoiding fighting, he will leave the scene and/or report to the Police. A fight must result when he retaliates and if in the process of retaliation he kills his opponent, he cannot, in my view, plead self-defence. By the International law principle of hot pursuit, an aggressor can be pursued even into its domain and for purposes of retaliation but this principle is not applicable in municipal criminal law.” –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Criminal Code CAP 30 Vol. II of the Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria 1978,

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT