IHEANYIGHICHI APUGO V THE STATE
June 5, 2025ALHAJI JIMOH AROWOLO V. JIMOH OLUWOLE AKAPO & ORS
June 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (SC) 37173
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 14, 2006
Suit Number: SC. 244/2005
CORAM
PARTIES
1. D.S.P GODSPOWER NWANKWOALA2. SGT. GIDEON ATIME APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants were charged along with one Cpl. ALPHONSUS EKEYI (since deceased) in a two count charge of culpable homicide by causing the deaths of Echono Itolo and Robert Inalegwu. At the end of their trial at the High Court, each was convicted and sentenced to death. The three convicts appealed against their conviction. But before the appeal was heard at the Court of Appeal, the 3rd accused/convict died in prison custody. The appeal in respect of the two Appellants were heard and dismissed. They further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal of the 1st appellant was dismissed. His conviction and sentence by the lower court was affirmed. The appeal of the 2nd appellant was allowed. His conviction and sentence for culpable homicide at the trial High Court and affirmed by the court below was set aside.
ISSUES
Whether from the totality of the evidence in the record the Court of Appeal was right in confirming the conviction of the Appellants.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DUTY OF THE COURT CONCERNING EVIDENCE AND DEFENSES
“In a criminal trial the court is bound to consider not only those defenses specifically raised by the accused but also all such evidence and defenses which favorably avail him.” Per F.F. TABAI, JSC
WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS IS CONTRADICTORY
“Where the evidence of a witness is materially contradictory the witness should be regarded as unreliable and his evidence ignored. Such evidence can however be accepted and relied upon if the contradiction is explained to the satisfaction of the court.” Per F.F. TABAI, JSC
WHEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS
“In criminal cases the burden of proof remains always with the prosecution and never shifts except in certain exceptional cases like insanity.” Per F.F. TABAI, JSC
WHERE COMMON INTENTION IS ESTABLISHED
“The mere fact of the common intention manifesting in the execution of the common object is enough to render each of the accused persons in the group guilty of the offence.” Per F.F. TABAI, JSC
CASES CITED
Augustine Duru v. The State (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 283 at 290-291Christopher Onubogun v. The State (1974) 9 SC 1,Agwu & Ors v. The State (1965) NMLR 18Jonathan Agbi & Anor v. The State (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 648) 169 at 197Patrick Ikemsons 7 Ors v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 at 466The State v. Idapu Emine & 2Ors (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 256) 658 at 674Adebayo v. The Republic 1967 NMLR 391Akpabio v. The State (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 359) 671Oguntolu v. The State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 432) 503Malam Zakari Ahmed v. The State (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 612) 641 at 679 and 681
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
