CORAM

---

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Binta Fatima Zubairu-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Uwabunkeonye Onwosi- Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

BIDEMI AJAGBE

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, BURDEN OF PROOF

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case concerns an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Ogun State, sitting at Ilaro, delivered by Honorable Justice N. O. Durojaiye on June 8, 2020, in Suit No: HCT/28C/2018. The Appellant, Bidemi Ajagbe, was charged with a one-count charge of murder contrary to Section 316 and punishable under Section 319 of the Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State, 2006.

The Appellant was arraigned before the trial Court and pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the Prosecution called three witnesses (PW1, PW2, and PW3) and tendered three exhibits: the knife allegedly used in killing the deceased as Exhibit A, and the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant as Exhibits B and C. The Appellant testified solely in her defense without calling any other witnesses.

Following the conclusion of the trial and the adoption of final written addresses on May 11,2020, judgment was delivered on June 8, 2020. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the said judgment, filed the present appeal, setting out four grounds of appeal in the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on July 7, 2022.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was partially allowed.

2. The Court held that the prosecution proved the offence of manslaughter against the Appellant but not murder.

3. The judgment of the High Court of Justice, Ogun State, delivered by Honorable Justice N. O. Durojaiye on June 8, 2020, in Suit No: HCT/28C/2018, wherein the Appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence of murder, was substituted for manslaughter.

4. The Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Respondent was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the offence of murder against the Appellant, by the totality of evidence adduced.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF MURDER – WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO GROUND A CONVICTION FOR MURDER:

---

“To begin with, for the Prosecution to succeed in establishing the offence of Murder, he must prove the following ingredients of murder beyond reasonable doubt:

1. That the deceased had died; and

2. That the death of the deceased was caused by the accused; and

3. That the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

PROOF OF IDENTITY IN MURDER TRIALS – FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT IN PROVING MURDER:

---

“Now, it is the law that in a murder trial, the identity of the person for which the accused has been accused of killing is a very fundamental element to be proved by the prosecution. That is so because, an accused person can hardly be convicted of murder if no person has died due to the alleged illegal acts of the accused. The evidence of identity of the corpse of deceased person can be proved by either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence which leads to one conclusion only, that the autopsy was performed on the body of the deceased person who is said to be the victim of the accused person's alleged criminal acts.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN – PRESUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY IN MURDER CASES:

---

“This, needless to say, brings to the fore, the Doctrine of Last Seen or the Last Seen Doctrine, which the two lower Courts readily invoked in finding the Appellant guilty as charged for the said offence of murder. The said Doctrine means that the law presumes that the person, who is last seen with a deceased, bears full responsibility for his death.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

BURDEN ON ACCUSED WHEN LAST SEEN WITH DECEASED – DUTY TO PROVIDE EXPLANATION:

---

“It means that any Accused person charged with murder, as in this case, who was last seen in the company of the deceased, would be required to offer some explanation as to how the deceased met his death – see Adeputu V. State (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 565) 185, where this Court held: The burden is always on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and there is no onus on the Accused to account for the death of the deceased. Where, however, the facts proved in evidence constitute a prima facie case in the sense that they would justify, without in any way constituting any finding of liability, the absence of an explanation of facts, which tell against the Accused, would be treated as evidence against him and where he fails to give an explanation, this failure will support an inference against him.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

VITAL WITNESS – MEANING AND EFFECT OF FAILURE TO CALL:

---

“A vital witness is a witness whose evidence is fundamental, in that it determines the case one way or the other. Failure to call a vital witness by the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution’s case. See State v. Nnolim 1994 NWLR pt. 345 p. 394. Furthermore, failure to call vital witness raises the presumption under section 149 (d) of the Evidence Act that had he been called the evidence he would have led would have been unfavourable to the prosecution.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

PROSECUTION’S DISCRETION IN CALLING WITNESSES – NO OBLIGATION TO CALL ALL POTENTIAL WITNESSES:

---

“reason is that the law has not prescribed the category or the total number of witnesses the prosecution is obligated to call in order to prove its case. The choice of how to go about proving its case resides squarely on the prosecution and it is at liberty to conduct its case as it thinks best so long as what the prosecution proffered satisfies the standard expected in establishing the essential ingredients of a stated offence.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – STANDARD AND RESOLUTION OF DOUBT:

---

“The duty on the prosecution in a criminal charge as prescribed by Section 139 of the Evidence Act, 2011, is to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This is in line with Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which presumes him innocent until his guilt is proved. The onus remains on the prosecution throughout the trial and does not shift. In other words, there is no duty on the accused to prove his innocence.

Furthermore, in the event of any doubt, it must be resolved in favour of the accused.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

NUMBER OF WITNESSES REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION – QUALITY OVER QUANTITY:

---

“There is no law which imposes an obligation on the prosecution to call list or host of witnesses. The prosecution is merely needed to call enough material witnesses to prove its case and in doing so it has a discretion in the matter on who to call or who not to call. Even a murder case can be established by evidence of only one witness provided his evidence is credible and believed by the trial Court.” – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

CO-EXISTENCE OF INGREDIENTS OF MURDER – EFFECT OF ABSENCE OR DOUBT:

---

“It is trite that the ingredients of proving murder must co-exist and where one of them is absent or tainted with doubt, the charge is said not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that such doubt should be resolved in favour of the Appellant.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – PROOF BY CIRCUMSTANCES:

---

“Circumstantial evidence is the proof of circumstances from which, according to the ordinary course of human affairs, the existence of some facts may reasonably be presumed.

Circumstantial evidence in criminal law is often described as the narration of surrounding circumstances which by un-designed coincidence is capable of proving with a clear-cut accuracy the guilt of the accused person.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

VALUE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – COMPARISON WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE:

---

“Circumstantial evidence has often been described by the Courts as the best evidence as against eye witness because circumstances cannot lie.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

INTENT TO KILL – INFERENCE FROM WEAPON USED AND BODY PART TARGETED:

---

“By stabbing the Deceased with a knife on the neck, the Appellant intended to kill the deceased.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

RESOLUTION OF DOUBT – CIRCUMSTANCES RAISING DOUBT IN HOMICIDE CASES:

---

“However, from the evidence before the Court, in which the parties are in ad idem, the Appellant and the Deceased were husband and wife. The incident happened when they were fighting. No evidence as to the circumstances that led to the fight and as to who was the aggressor. These raise doubts which the law enjoins should be resolved in favour of the Defendant.– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

 Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State, 2006, Sections 316 and 319

 Evidence Act, 2011, Sections 37(a), 139, 149(d)

 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 36(5)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---