CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

ANDREW AYEDATIWOR APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

APPEAL, COURT, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, WORDS AND PHRASES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and one Segun Akinlolu had been charged before the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, Oron Judicial Division on one count of murder. Upon their arraignment before the trial court, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case later proceeded to trial. The prosecution called two witnesses and tendered two documents marked exhibits 1 & 2 respectively. PW1- Edward Agabi was the investigating Police Officer (IPO). He testified that he was serving at Ewang, Mbo Local Government area when the incident in question took place and he was detailed to investigate the case against the two accused persons and one other who later died. The case of murder was originally reported at Oron Police Station but later transferred to Ewang Divisional Police Station for investigation. The case was that, the accused persons were passengers in a speed boat driven with the deceased – Okon Uyeh, in the High Sea. The accused attacked the deceased and other occupants of the said speed boat. The deceased was stabbed and thrown into the sea with one Eteyen and afterward carted away the speed boat. The Complainant who also boarded a flying boat where he acted as a conductor had, upon seeing what was happening, jumped into the sea along with another passenger of the boat. The two were later rescued by the fishermen on the sea. The corpses of the deceased Okon Uyeh and Eteyen were later recovered and deposited at the hospital where a Post Mortem examination was carried out. The statement of the 1st accused was produced and tendered in evidence but an objection was raised by the defence. The trial court later conducted a trial within trial to determine the admissibility and voluntariness of the statement. In a considered ruling of the trial court, the objection was overruled and the statement was held to be voluntary confession of the 1st accused – Segun Akinlolu and same was admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit 1. When the trial proceeded, the statement of the Appellant was tendered by the IPO and as there was no objection, same was admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit 2. PW1 however admitted under cross examination that he did not take the accused persons before superior Police Officer after obtaining their respective confessional statements. The Appellant testified in his defence but called no other witness. At the conclusion of the hearing, in its reserved judgment, the trial court found the Appellant guilty as charged. He was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging until pronounced dead. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant appealed to the court below. In its considered unanimous judgment, the appeal was found unmeritorious and was accordingly dismissed, leading to the instant appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the affirmation of the appellant’s conviction for murder, by the court below?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

“MURDER”- DEFINITION OF THE WORD “MURDER”

---

“Murder has long been defined as, “the taking of human life by a person who either:
(a) has a malicious and willful intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm or;
(b) is wickedly reckless as to the consequences of his act upon his victim.
Therefore, for murder, the suspect must have an evil intent, that is, a criminal intent, although, it is not necessary that there should be an intent to kill. See; R. Vs Viockers (1957) 2 A; ER 741 at 744; Yekini Afosi Vs. The State (2013) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 28′ (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt.1371) 329; (2013) 6-7 SC (Pt.lll) 37; (2013) 6 SCNJ (Pt.l) 1, (2014) All FWLR (Pt.725) 268.”

---

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

---

“It is trite law and settled, that for the prosecution to secure conviction for charge of murder, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
(a)That the deceased had died;
(b)That the death of the person was caused by the accused person;
(c)That the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. See; Edwor Ogba Vs The State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.222) 164; (1992) 02 SCNJ 100; Uchenna Nwachukwu Vs. The State (2002) 12 SC 50 143 Okolo Ochemaje Vs The State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.1109) 10 SCM 103; (2008) 6-7 SC (Pt. ll) 1; (2008) LPELR 2198.”

---

PROOF OF GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON- WAYS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED IN A CHARGE OF MURDER

---

“In law, it is trite that the guilt of an accused who is charged with the commission of a crime can be proved by way of the following:-
(a)Confessional statement of the accused which has passed the requirement of the law;
(b)Evidence of eye witness who saw or witnessed the commission of the alleged crime; or
(c)Circumstantial evidence which links the accused and no other person with the commission of the crime or the offence charged. See; Joseph Lori & Anor Vs. The State (1980) 8-11 SC (Reprint) 52; (1980) LPELR R-1794.”

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- NATURE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SUFFICIENT TO GROUND CONVICTION WITHOUT CORROBORATION

---

“Ordinarily, and the law is trite on the point that, a man may be convicted on his own confession alone even without corroboration and there is no law against it. The position of the law is that if a suspect makes a free and voluntary confession in his extra judicial statement to the police, which confession is found to be direct and positive and the court is satisfied with its truth, such confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground conviction without corroboration. See; Asimiyu Alarape & Ors Vs The State (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt.705) 79; (2001) 2 SC 114; (2001) LPELR 412; Ozana Ubierho Vs. The State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.919) 644; (2005) 2 SC (Pt. l) 18; (2005) LPELR- 3283. There is certainly no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. The confession is admissible. See; Akeem Agboola Vs. The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1366) 619; (2013) 8 SCM, 157; (2013) All FWLR (Pt.704) 139; (2013) LPELR – 20652.”

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS – WHETHER APPELLATE COURTS WILL READILY INTERFERE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS OF LOWER COURTS

---

“The law is trite that where there are concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts, as happened in this case, this court will not readily interfere with such findings made unless and except there is some miscarriage of justice, or it has been shown that the said concurrent findings of fact as they are, would lead to a miscarriage of justice or were perverse and special circumstances have been shown to that effect. See; Lokoyi & Anor Vs Obi T. N. Adiagwu (1985) NWLR Pt.4) 694; (1985) 5 SC 144; (1985) LPELR – 2480; Prince Eyinade Ojo & Ors Vs A.G of Oyo State & Ors (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.1110) 577; (2008) 6-7 SC (Pt. ll) 54; (2008) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 669; (2008) LPELR – 2379.”

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Criminal Code Law, Cap. 31, Vol.13, Laws of Cross River State, as applicable in Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria

Evidence Act, 2011

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT