Legalpedia Citation: (2014-04) Legalpedia (SC) 49116
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 11, 2014
Suit Number: SC.373/2011
CORAM
HON. JUSTICE SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
HON. JUSTICE BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
HON. JUSTICE NWALI SYVESTER NGWUTA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
HON. JUSTICE KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
HON. JUSTICE JOHN INYANG OKORO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
JOSEPH ADELU APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal against the affirmation of the conviction and sentence to death by hanging of the Appellant by the Court of Appeal; Ibadan Division. The learned trial judge in his judgment agreed with the prosecution counsel that the charge of murder had been proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He did not consider the defence of insanity. The Court of Appeal in its judgment also affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. Dissatisfied, the Appellant has further appealed to this Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES
1. Whether there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain a finding of insanity and an acquittal of the Appellant?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFENCES – DUTY OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER ALL DEFENCES IN A CHARGE OF MURDER
“A court has a sacred duty to consider all defences available to an accused charged with murder, whether or not such defences are specifically put up by him”. PER GALADIMA JSC
MURDER- MEANING OF MURDER
“Murder is an intimate act predicated on a simple motive of passion, be it of hatred, love or greed. It involves a degree of control and calculation and it is doubtful that at the material time the appellant possessed either or both”. PER NGWUTA JSC
CONVICTION- WHEN CAN A CONVICTION STAND
“A conviction stands only if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. PER NGWUTA JSC
INSANITY- WHERE THE COURT CAN ACCEPT EVIDENCE OF INSANITY
“Thus the court may accept evidence of insanity from family history; evidence of conduct of accused immediately preceding the killing and finding of medical officer who examined the accused after the event if that finding is consistent with earlier evidence of insanity. PER GALADIMA JSC
DEFENCES – DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER ALL DEFENCES IN A CHARGE OF MURDER
“In a charge of murder, the trial court has a duty to consider all the defences raised by the evidence whether the person charged specifically put up such defences or not. This is to be done even where the defence appears weak or stupid since the life of a human being is at stake. PER OKORO JSC
INTENTION- HOW CAN INTENTION BE INFERRED
“Intention, which is the state of mind of the accused /appellant in most cases is inferred from the facts established in court. PER RHODES – VIVOUR JSC
SPECULATION- ATTITUDE OF THE COURT TOWARDS SPECULATIONS
“Any suggestion or finding that the Appellant possess certain traits such as irascibility, irritability, eccentricity, and quarrelsomeness, it is contended, would amount to speculation and this court cannot do that as it leads to injustice”. PER GALADIMA JSC
DEFENCE OF INSANITY- WHAT AN ACCUSED PERSON WHO RELIES ON THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY MUST ESTABLISH
“An accused person who has put up defence of insanity must show that he is suffering either from mental disease or from natural infirmity”. PER GALADIMA JSC
ABSENCE OF MOTIVE- WHETHER ABSENCE OF MOTIVE CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT GROUND TO INFER MANIA
“Absence of motive, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to infer mania but where there is evidence indicative of insanity rather than the opposite, the absence of motive, as in this case, ought to be considered material to the determination of the mental capacity of the appellant at the material time. PER NGWUTA JSC
SECTION 27 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE- PRESUMPTION OF SANITY
“The interpretation of the above is that every person (children excluded) are presumed to be sane at the time of commission of the act (in this case murder). The onus is on the accused/appellant to prove that he was insane at the time be committed the offence. The burden of proof of the defence of insanity is on the accused person. PER RHODES – VIVOUR JSC
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT- WHEN DOES PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT EXIST
“There can be no proof beyond reasonable doubt unless the mental capacity of the accused at all times material to the act or omission constituting the offence charged is established once raised or is apparent from materials before the trial Court. PER NGWUTA JSC
DEFENCE OF INSANITY- WHEN CAN THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY AVAIL THE ACCUSED
“The defence of insanity can only avail the accused if he can show that he was insane at the time he committed the act”. PER OKORO JSC
CASES CITED
Agbi v. Ogbeh (2006) 11NWLR (pt.990) 65 at 135Augustine Onuchukwu & Anor v. The State (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 547) 576Ejinima V State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt 200) 627.Karimu v. The State (supra) p.140.Olalomi Ind. Ltd v. NIDB Ltd (2009) 12 NWLR (pt.1167) 266 at 303-304.R v. Ashigifuwo (1948) 12 WACA 389.R v. Inyang (1946) 19 WACA 5;S. Selvanayagan v. R.1951 AC p.83.Ukadike v. State (1973) 6 SC.14Uwa Ehinya v. State (2005) 9NWLR (pt. 930) 227 at 248Uwaekweghinya V State (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt 930) 227 at 248,
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Criminal Code of Ogun State