OKON ETIM AKPAN V THE STATE

CORAM

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNONHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTUO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

OKON ETIM AKPAN APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was charged with the offence of murder contrary to Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap C16, Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria 2005 at the High Court of Cross River State. The Appellant pleaded not guilty while the Respondent called five witnesses. It was the Prosecutor witnesses 1 (PW1) case that the Appellant had previous quarrels with the deceased, in which on one occasion the Appellant went to the compound of the deceased, dragged him out to the road lifted him up and hit him on the ground resulting to his death. During post mortem examination it was found that the cause of the death of the deceased was traced to the injuries resulting from the Appellant’s act. The trial court convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death upon these facts and supporting exhibits. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed hence a further appeal to this court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error when it held upon the totality of the evidence adduced at the Court of trial, that the charge of murder had been established against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt ?

2. Whether on all the established facts in this case, the proper verdict which ought to have been returned by the Court of Appeal against the Appellant is not one of manslaughter rather than one of murder?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF IN A MURDER TRIAL – MODE OF DISCHARGING THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A MURDER TRIAL

“In a murder trial the burden of proof is not discharged unless the prosecution establishes the case of death and also that the act of the accused caused the death of the deceased. See Philip Omogodo v. The State (1981) 5 SC 5 at 26-27; R v. Samuel Abengowe 3 WACA 85; Raymond Ozo v. The State (1971) 1 All NLR 111 at 115.” PER N.S. NGWUTA, J.S.C

OFFENCE OF MURDER- ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER

“That brings up the matter of the essential ingredients of the offence of murder which all have to be proved to sustain a charge of murder and these are thus:-
a) The death of the victim.
b) The death of the victim was caused by the unlawful act or omission of the accused person and
c) That the act or omission of the accused that resulted in the death of the deceased was intentional and was such an act that would result in death or grievous bodily harm.
I rely on Uguru v State (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt 771) 90 at 106; Gina v State (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 443) 375; Nwaeze v State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 428) 1; Ogba v State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 222) 164; Igabele v State (2005) NCC 59 at 63.
PER M.U. PETER –ODILI, J.S.C

VERDICT OF MURDER – DUTY OF THE COURT BEFORE ENTERING A VERDICT OF MURDER

“It is settled law that before entering the verdict of murder, the Lower court should have considered all possible defences including alternative verdict of manslaughter open to the accused. See Ojo v State (1973) NSCC 590; Sokoto v The State (1976) NSCC 96.” PER M.U. PETER –ODILI, J.S.C

PROOF OF CRIME – MEANS OF PROVING THE CULPABILITY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

“In reiteration of what is now trite to establish the culpability of an accused in proof of a crime, any one of the following means is acceptable, that is:
(a) Direct evidence also known as evidence of an eye-witness or witnesses.
(b)Confessional statement of the accused person.
(c)Circumstantial evidence. See Emeka v State (2002) 32 WRN 37 or (2006) 6 SCNJ 259.” PER M.U. PETER –ODILI, J.S.C

TAINTED WITNESS – MEANING OF TAINTED WITNESS

“A tainted witness connotes a person who is either an accomplice or who may be regarded as having some purpose of his/her own to serve. See Moses v. The State (2006) 4 SC (Pt. 11) 30.” PER N.S. NGWUTA, J.S.C