CORAM
Hon. Justice Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal
Hon. Justice Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal
Hon. Justice Jane Esienanwan Inyang Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
ARINOLA AKINLEYE
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, MURDER, DYING DECLARATION, HEARSAY EVIDENCE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant, Arinola Akinleye, was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging for the murder of her husband by the High Court of Ogun State. The prosecution presented evidence that the appellant poured petrol on the deceased, set him on fire, and locked him inside their house. Neighbors rescued the deceased, who later succumbed to severe burns at the hospital. Before his death, the deceased made a dying declaration accusing the appellant of setting him on fire. The appellant denied the charges, raising issues of self-defense, alibi, and the possibility of the deceased committing suicide or being assassinated.
The appellant appealed the decision, contesting the admissibility of the medical report, the reliance on conflicting evidence, the rejection of her defenses, and the legal sufficiency of the prosecution’s case.
HELD
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court held that the evidence of the prosecution was consistent, the medical report was not essential in this case, and the defenses raised by the appellant lacked merit. The trial court’s findings were upheld.
ISSUES
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ADMISSIBILITY OF MEDICAL REPORT – WHETHER THE COURT CAN RELY ON A MEDICAL REPORT WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE AUTHOR
“The Court held that although the medical report was not verified by the author, the cause of death was sufficiently established through eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. In cases where the cause of death is obvious, a medical report may not be indispensable.”
–Per Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole, JCA:
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT TO CONVICT THE APPELLANT BASED ON EVIDENCE FROM PROSECUTION WITNESSES
“The Court ruled that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were consistent on material facts and that the alleged contradictions raised by the appellant were not sufficient to vitiate the conviction. The testimonies of witnesses PW1 to PW5 corroborated the dying declaration of the deceased.”
– Per Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole, JCA
SUICIDE, ASSASSINATION, SELF-DEFENSE – WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S DEFENSES WERE ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT
“The Court found that the trial court had duly considered the defenses of suicide, assassination, and self-defense but rejected them due to the overwhelming evidence against the appellant. The evidence showed that the appellant was the last person with the deceased and that she locked him in the house after setting him on fire.”
– Per Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole, JCA
TRIAL FOR LESSER OFFENSE – WHETHER THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRIED FOR MANSLAUGHTER OR ATTEMPTED MURDER
“The Court rejected the argument that the appellant should have been convicted of a lesser offense such as manslaughter or attempted murder. The evidence clearly indicated intent to kill, which is the critical element distinguishing murder from manslaughter.”
– Per Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole, JCA
ESTABLISHMENT OF MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS – WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PROVED THE ELEMENTS OF MURDER
“The Court concluded that the prosecution had established both the mens rea (intention to kill) and the actus reus (criminal act) of murder. The appellant’s actions in pouring petrol on the deceased and setting him on fire demonstrated a clear intent to kill.”
– Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO