UKO IKONO V THE STATE
APPEAL NO: SC.498/2016

AREAS OF LAW:
APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACT:
The Appellant with his son allegedly beat up the deceased to death in the night of October, 2010. The attack was witnessed by the wife of the deceased who gave an eyewitness account that the deceased was attacked with sharp objects, which left him with fractured legs and ribs injuries-. After he was taken to Ikot Ekpene General Hospital, it was medically advised that the two legs of the deceased be amputated. However, the relations of the deceased took him rather to a traditional bone setter where an infection set in. He was eventually taken to a Christian Hospital where he gave up the ghost. The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court, and trial commenced. The trial Court notwithstanding the clear statement in Exhibit B attributing the immediate cause of death of the deceased “to be septicaemia from poorly managed bilateral open fracture -“, nonetheless convicted the Appellant for the murder of, the deceased. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant, hence this further appeal.

HELD:
Appeal Allowed

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
 Whether in the circumstances of this case and considering the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Evidence Act, Cap E14 LFN 2011, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they affirmed the trial Court’s finding and reliance on “Exhibit B” which was the purported autopsy report conducted on the deceased.

 Whether considering the facts of this case and the material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in upholding the conviction of the appellant, by the Learned Trial Judge.

RATIONES:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
BURDEN OF PROOF- BASIC PRINCIPLE GUIDING THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
“The basic and elementary principle, as regards the burden of proof in criminal cases, is that in all criminal cases the onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. That has been the principle since R. v. Basil Lawrence (1932) 11 NLR 6. It remained the position under the 1945 Evidence Ordinance. It was re-enacted into the Evidence Act, 1990 and 2011 respectively as Sections 138(1) and 135(1).” PER E. EKO, J.S.C.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The accused person bears no duty or onus to prove his innocence until the prosecution, prima facie establishes that the accused person may be complicit or culpable in the allegation of the commission of some crime against him.” PER E. EKO, J.S.C.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
PROOF OF CAUSE OF DEATH – EFFECT OF AN INTERVENING CAUSE IN PROVING THE CAUSE OF DEATH IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
“This Court, in Aiguoreghian v. The State (2004) 3 NWLR (pt. 860) 367 (SC), held that once there is an intervening or supervening cause – i.e respectively novus actus interveniens, or nova interveniens, there is a break in the chain of causation and such break in the chain of causation would result in or cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case, which doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused person.” PER E. EKO, J.S.C.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
MURDER- INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR MURDER
“In every murder case, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that –
I. That the deceased died;
II. That the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the accused person and no other act: and
III. That the act of the accused person was intentional or with the knowledge that death or bodily harm was the probable consequence.
State v. Sule (2009) 17 NWLR (pt. 1169) 33 (SC). The sine qua non for conviction for murder or manslaughter is the proof beyond reasonable doubt of the fact, inter alia, of the cause of death.” PER E. EKO, J.S.C.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
MATERIAL CONTRADICTION- NATURE OF A MATERIAL CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE
“A material contradiction is that which goes to the material point in prosecution’s case, such as to create reasonable doubt in the case and thus entitling the accused person to the benefit of the doubt: Ahmed v. The State (2000) FWLR (pt. 90) 1358 at 1385; (2002) 18 NWLR (PT. 746) 622; Dibie & Ors V. The State (2007) 3 SC (pt. 1) 176; John Agbo v. The State (2006) 6 NWLR (pt. 977) 545 at 563; Omogodo v. The State (1981) 5 SC. 5.” PER E. EKO, J.S.C.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
DISCREPANCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES – WHETHER DISCREPANCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES AMOUNTS TO MATERIAL CONTRADICTION
“Discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses on peripheral details that do no violence to the substance do not amount to material contradictions. Such peripheral discrepancies should not be the basis for quashing a conviction: Egwumi v. The State (2013) VOL. 220 LRCN (pt. 1) 225 at 260.” PER E. EKO, J.S.C.

STATUTES REFERRED TO:
Criminal Code of Akwa Ibom State
Evidence Act, Cap E14 LFN 2011