ANTHONY AKADILE V. THE STATE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ANTHONY AKADILE V. THE STATE

SWISS AIR TRANSPORT CO. LTD V. THE AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD
August 27, 2025
A. O. IBENWELU V. LAWAL DEV
August 27, 2025
SWISS AIR TRANSPORT CO. LTD V. THE AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD
August 27, 2025
A. O. IBENWELU V. LAWAL DEV
August 27, 2025
Show all

ANTHONY AKADILE V. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (1971) Legalpedia (SC) 62913

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Jan 22, 1971

Suit Number: SC 197/1970

CORAM


COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MADARIKAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


ANTHONY AKADILE APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant was charged with the murder of a fellow hunter whom he shot purporting to shoot an ape. He sought to rely on the plea of accident.


HELD


The court held that it was satisfied that the accused had deliberately shot the deceased.


ISSUES


Whether the argument of counsel that the exhumation order made by learned trial Judge to verify allegations made by accused that he was made to eat a part of the deceased showed elements of doubts which should be resolved in favour of the accused.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT


Elements of doubts raised in a trial are generally, resolved in favour of an accused person but the elements of doubt raised by the exhumation order of the trial Judge in this case was made to resolve the allegations of the appellant himself that he was made to eat a part of the deceased who he had already killed. This doubt does not affect the verdict of guilty on the accused. It is not a doubt to be resolved in his favour.
PER MADARIKAN JSC.


PER MADARIKAN JSC.


<br< p=””></br<>


DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT


Elements of doubts raised in a trial are generally, resolved in favour of an accused person but the elements of doubt raised by the exhumation order of the trial Judge in this case was made to resolve the allegations of the appellant himself that he was made to eat a part of the deceased who he had already killed. This doubt does not affect the verdict of guilty on the accused. It is not a doubt to be resolved in his favour.


CASES CITED



STATUTES REFERRED TO


EVIDENCE ACT.


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.