OCHE MATTHEW v. THE STATE

CORAM

PARTIES

OCHE MATTHEW APPELLANTS

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Ondo State, Owo Judicial Division on a one count charge of murder contrary to section 316 and punishable under section 319 of the Criminal Code cap 30 Vol. 11 Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 1978. The accused was said to have shot one Akeem Akinwunmi (the deceased).

The accused raised a defence that the deceased was a suspected armed robber who was trying to escape arrest and so shot towards the direction of the deceased to prevent the deceased from running, but the bullet eventually hit the deceased and killed him. At the end of the trial, the court found the accused guilty and convicted him according. Aggrieved with the decision of the trial Court the Appellant has appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1.Whether the learned trial judge was right in admitting Exhibit B and relying on it to convict the Appellant.?

2.Whether the learned trial judge was right in not considering the issue of the prosecution not calling vital witnesses and whether Section 149 (d) Evidence Act should not be invoked in favour of the Appellant.?

3.Whether the learned trial judge was right in convicting the Appellant of the offence of murder in all the circumstances of this case.?

4.Whether the killing of the deceased was excusable or justified?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ADDUCING EVIDENCE – CONSEQUENCES OF A PARTY NOT ADDUCING EVIDENCE WHICH HE OUGHT TO ADDUCE

“If a party to a suit does not adduce evidence which he is supposed and has the opportunity to adduce, then it may be presumed that the evidence will be against him if adduced”. PER M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A.

CALLING OF WITNESSES – THE PROSECUTION IS NOT OBLIGATED TO CALL A HOST OF WITNESSES TO PROVE ITS CASE

“The law imposes no obligation on the prosecution to call a host of witnesses to prove its case, all it needs to do is to call enough material witnesses to prove its case, and in so doing, it has discretion in the matter. It does not lie in the mouth of the defence to urge the prosecution to call a particular witness. See Olayinka V State (2007) 9 NWLR (pt.1040) 561; Imhanria V Nigerian Army (2007) 14 NWLR (pt.1053) 76. Indeed, the evidence of a single witness, if believed by the court, can establish a criminal case even if it is a murder charge. Effiong V State (1998) 8 NWLR (pt.562) 362.” PER M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A.

CALLING OF WITNESSES – WHETHER A PARTY IS BOUND TO CALL A PARTICULAR WITNESS WHEN HE CAN PROVE HIS CASE OTHERWISE?

“A party is not bound to call a particular witness if he thinks that he can prove his case otherwise. This point was stressed by Uwais JSC (as he then was) in Samuel Onwujuba & 2 Ors V Nathaniel Obienu & 4 Ors (1991) 4 NWLR (pt.183) 16 at 29.” PER M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A.

PRESUMPTION OF INTENT – A MAN IS PRESUMED TO INTEND THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACT.

“A man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. Therefore where by an unlawful act, he causes another person grievous bodily harm leading to the death of that person, he is presumed to have intended to kill that person and he would be guilty of murder irrespective of his intention. See Audu V. State (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt 820) 516.” PER J. S. ABIRIYI, J.C.A.

Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 11518

In the Court of Appeal

Wed Jan 28, 2015

Suit Number: CA/B/124c/2010