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

---

DAVID ABIOLA

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, MURDER, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, David Abiola, was arraigned before the High Court of Ogun State sitting at Ilaro Judicial Division on a charge of murder contrary to Section 316 and punishable under Section 319 of the Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria, 2006. The charge alleged that on April 25, 2010, at Oniro Village, Ipokia in Ilaro, the Appellant murdered one Damilola Idowu, a child of 2 and a half years.

The Prosecution called five witnesses (PW1-PW5) who testified that the Appellant committed the offense. The Prosecution tendered Exhibits A, B & B1, C, C1 & C2, which were the confessional statements of the Appellant, admitted after a trial-within-trial. The Appellant testified for himself and did not tender any exhibit.

According to PW1 (the father of the deceased) and PW2 (the brother of the deceased), on April 25, 2010, Damilola Idowu went missing from home. The matter was reported to the village Oba (king) and subsequently to the police. Police investigations led to the arrest of the Appellant who, according to his confessional statements, admitted to participating in the killing of the child. He claimed he held the child’s hands while one Noah Oke stabbed her with a knife. The body was then placed in a rice sack, kept in a banana plantation, and later transported to Badagry on a motorcycle.

After a full trial, the trial Judge relied on the confessional statements of the Appellant and the evidence before the court to convict the Appellant on the lone count of murder. Consequently, the Appellant was sentenced to death. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The conviction and death sentence passed on the Appellant by the High Court of Ogun State sitting at Abeokuta Judicial Division and delivered by Hon. Justice M. A. Dipeolu on March 24, 2015, in Suit No: HCL/9C/2013 was affirmed.

3. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully proven all the ingredients of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The Court found that the Appellant’s confessional statements, which were corroborated by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, were sufficient to ground a conviction for murder.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the prosecution proved the offense of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt as required by law?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

---

The general principle of law, which is well enunciated is that, save for exceptional cases as may be stipulated by law, the burden of proof of criminal responsibility solely rests on the Prosecution. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

PROVING GUILT OF A DEFENDANT – METHODS OF ESTABLISHING GUILT

---

In light of this evergreen principle on presumption of innocence, when can the guilt of a Defendant be deemed established? The law is now settled that to establish the guilt of the Defendant, the prosecution has a solid responsibility to duly establish the ingredients of the offence(s) charged which can be proved either through (a) Confessional statement of the Defendant; (b) Circumstantial evidence or (c) Direct evidence of eyewitnesses or a combination of any or all of the aforesaid. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

INGREDIENTS OF MURDER – WHAT PROSECUTION MUST PROVE

---

It is now settled law that in a charge of murder, as in this case, the prosecution has the duty/burden of proving:

(a) That the deceased died;

(b) That the death of the deceased was caused by the accused; and

(c) That the accused intended to either kill or cause the victim/deceased grievous bodily harm. It is also settled law that the above three elements/ingredients of the offence of murder must co-exist at the same time, otherwise the accused person is entitled to be acquitted of the offence so charged. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

CONVICTION BASED ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHEN CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT

---

Once there exists a confessional statement which is direct, cogent and unequivocal to the fact that the appellant murdered the deceased, the prosecution need not prove any of the three elements. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – TEST FOR RELYING ON RETRACTED CONFESSION

---

A Court can convict on the retracted confessional statement of an accused person, but before this is properly done, the trial Judge should evaluate the confession and testimony of the accused person and all the evidence available. This entails the trial Judge examining the new version of events presented by the accused person, which is different from his retracted confession and the Judge asking himself the following questions: a. Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true? b. Is it corroborated? c. Are the relevant statements made in it of facts true as far as they can be tested? d. Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence charged? e. Is the confession possible? f. Is the confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved?- Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

WEAPON USED IN COMMISSION OF OFFENSE – WHETHER NON-TENDERING OF WEAPON IS FATAL

---

In the case of murder, the definition of the offence does not include the weapon with which it is committed. See for instance Section 316 of the Criminal Code applicable to the Southern part of the country. In neither, the case of attempted murder nor murder did the elements constituting the offence include the weapon used in the commission of the offence. In the same way, that the fact of a murder is provable by circumstantial evidence without the body of the deceased or trace thereof and in absence without of a confessional statement by the accused. The facts of attempted murder and murder can be proved without the weapon used in the commission of either offence.- Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

NATURE OF TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL – DISTINCTION FROM MAIN TRIAL

---

A trial within trial is a separate and distinct proceeding from the main trial, thus evidence adduced therein cannot be transplanted, injected or imported into the main trial. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

APPEAL AGAINST FINDING OF TRIAL COURT – NECESSITY TO APPEAL AGAINST SPECIFIC FINDING

---

Once a trial Court has determined, through a trial-within-trial that the confessional statement of an accused was made voluntarily, and admitted it in evidence, the voluntariness vel non of the statement cannot be raised on appeal. Unless the accused person appealed against the order admitting the statement after a trial-within-trial, he is estopped from raising the issue on appeal as he is deemed to have accepted the order admitting the confessional statement. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

SUFFICIENCY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – NATURE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT THAT CAN GROUND CONVICTION

---

Although there was no eyewitness to the killing of the deceased, Exhibit A being the Confessional Statement Of the Appellant, Which is found to be a truthful account Of what transpired is sufficient to ground a conviction and Sentence Of the Appellant for the law is trite that an accused person can be convicted solely on his Confessional Statement, if same is direct and unequivocal. – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS – ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

---

It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person’s awareness that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself is the physical element. The concept of mens rea, which is Law Latin for ‘guilty mind’, developed in England around the year 1600, when Judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common law crime varied then. In other words, mens rea is a criminal intention or knowledge that an act is wrong, and today most of the crimes are defined by statutes that generally contains a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement.- Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – MEANING AND STANDARD

---

… proof beyond reasonable doubt means the prosecution establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. It means a degree of compulsion that is consistent with a high degree of probability. It has always been emphasized that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt. – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

CORPUS DELICTI – PROOF OF MURDER WITHOUT RECOVERY OF BODY

---

The fact that a murder is provable by circumstantial evidence without the body of the deceased or trace thereof and in absence without of a confessional statement by the accused. The facts of attempted murder and murder can be proved without the weapon used in the commission of either offence. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

DEFINITION OF CONFESSION – WHAT CONSTITUTES A CONFESSION

---

An admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. – Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as Amended 2023)

2. Criminal Code Law, Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria, 2006

3. Evidence Act, 2011 (as Amended 2023)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT