Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 11629
In the Court of Appeal
Fri Mar 20, 2015
Suit Number: CA/L/1198/2010
CORAM
SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHINEDU EZE APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and his brother Chukwudi Eze were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of one Mr. Ndubuisi Nwawe contrary to section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code Cap C17, Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State 2003 on the 29th day of March 2010, by the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Judicial Division.
It was alleged that the deceased challenged the Appellant and his brother over the cups of rice sold to his daughter in the course of which a fight ensued and the Appellant and his brother hit the deceased on the head with a pestle mortar and iron rod. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he died eight days later. At the trial, an interim post mortem report which stated the cause of death of the deceased was tendered in evidence by the police investigator and not the doctor who prepared it.
The Appellant and his brother who were being arraigned for the murder of the deceased, were subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant has appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
1.Whether the Appellant’s arraignment at the trial Court was improper and consequently nullified the entire trial at the lower Court?
2.Whether the defence of self defence availed the Appellant in the circumstance?Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?
3.Whether the learned trial judge properly evaluated the evidence in the case?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
HEARSAY EVIDENCE – MEANING OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE – SECTION 37 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011
“Section 37 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides:
“Hearsay means a statement –
a. Oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding; or
b. Contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatever, proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IN SUSTAINING A CONVICTION FOR MURDER – THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IN SUSTAINING A CONVICTION FOR MURDER IS PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“Conviction for murder requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, whether by direct or circumstantial evidence.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – AN APPELLATE COURT CAN SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN VIEWS FOR THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT
“It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its own views for those of the trial court, but where the trial court failed to properly evaluate the material before it, an appellate court will in the interest of justice set aside its decision. Okunzua v. Amosu [19921 6 NWLR (Pt. 248) 416@ 430-431 H-A.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
DEFENCE OF SELF DEFENCE – AN ACCUSED PERSON MUST SHOW THAT HIS LIFE WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH FOR A DEFENCE OF SELF DEFENCE TO AVAIL HIM
“Self defence is a complete answer to a charge of murder. To avail himself of the defence, the appellant must show that his life was so endangered by the act of the deceased that the only option left for him to save his own life was to kill the deceased.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
ARRAIGNMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – CONDITIONS FOR A VALID AND PROPER ARRAIGNMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON.
“A valid and proper arraignment of an accused person must satisfy the following conditions:
1. He must be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see cause to otherwise order;
2. The charge or information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the court by the registrar or other officer of the court; and
3. He shall then be called upon to plead instantly thereto (unless there are valid reasons to do otherwise as provided in section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Law).” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
PROOF OF A CHARGE OF MURDER – INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN A CHARGE OF MURDER.
“In a charge of murder, the prosecution must cumulatively prove the following:
1. That the deceased died,
2. That it was the act of the accused that resulted in the death of the deceased, and
3. That the act of the accused was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm will be the natural consequences. See Onyenakeya V. The State (1964) NMLR 34; Omonuju V. State (1976) 5 SC 1; Akinfe V. State (1983) 3 NWLR (Pt. 85) 729: State Vs. Banjuma (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt 506) 512. G – H, Ubani v. State (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851)224 @ 241.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A
INADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE – HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE WHEN THE OBJECT OF THE EVIDENCE IS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT
“Section 38 provides that hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in this Part or by or under any other provision of this or any other Act. The hearsay rule was also aptly stated by the Privy Council in the case of Subramaniam vs. Public Prosecutor (1956) 1 WLR 965-969:
“Evidence of a statement made to witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the evidence but the fact that it was made.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
PROOF OF THE CONTENT OF A DOCUMENT – PROOF OF THE CONTENT OF A DOCUMENT CAN ONLY BE BY SOMEONE WHO CAN GIVE DIRECT ORAL EVIDENCE OF IT.
“The content of a document can only be proved by someone who can give direct oral evidence of the contents of such a document.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
PROOF OF GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – SUSPICION OR EVIDENCE OF OPPORTUNITY CANNOT PROVE THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON.
“Suspicion, no matter how strong or even evidence of opportunity to commit the offence charged cannot replace legal proof of guilt. See Onah V. State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt.12) 236; Ajose V. The State (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 302 @ 319 D-E.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
TENDERING OF DOCUMENTS – EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF TENDERING OF DOCUMENTS BY THE MAKER
“In Omega Bank Nigeria Plc vs. OBC Ltd (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt.928) 541 @ 582 B to 583 A-B Niki Tobi JSC observed:
“It is a general principle of law that the maker of a document is expected to tender it in evidence. There are two basic exceptions to this principle of law; (1) the maker is dead. (2) The maker can only be procured by involving the party in so much expense that could be outrageous in the circumstances of the case. The rationale behind this principle of law is that while a maker of a document is in a position to answer questions on it, the non-maker of it is not in such a position. In the later situation, a court of law will not attach any probative value to the document and a document that a court does not attach any probative value is as good as the mere paper on which it is made. After all probative value is the root of admissibility of evidence ”
See also Onwe v. The State (1975) NSCC 375 @ 381-382; Aiabe & Anor. V. The State (1976) NSCC 487 @ 480”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACTS – DUTY ON A TRIAL JUDGE TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE AND MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT
“It is the duty of the trial judge to evaluate the evidence and to make primary findings of fact – Oyibo Iriri & Ors. V. Erhurhobara & Anor. (1991) LPELR-1536 (SC).” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – EFFECT OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 36(5) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
“The presumption of innocence in section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 places a very heavy burden on the prosecution not only to prove the guilt of the accused but to prove it beyond reasonable doubt – Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act. The burden rests throughout on the prosecution and does not shift. In discharging the burden on it, the prosecution cannot rely on hearsay evidence, oral or documentary except as is provided under the Evidence Act” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1.Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999
2.Criminal Code Cap C17, Vol 2 Laws of Lagos State 2003
3.Criminal Procedure Act
4.Criminal Procedure Law
5.Evidence Act 2004
6.Evidence Act, 2011