ABUBAKAR ABDULKADIR v. THE STATE
May 5, 2021DAMILOLA OGUNGBULUGBE v. THE STATE
May 6, 2021PAUL IBOKO v. THE STATE
(2021) Legalpedia (CA) 84139
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT AKURE
Monday, March 29, 2021
Suite Number: CA/AK/77C/2015
CORAM
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA
JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA
PAUL IBOKO || THE STATE
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned before the Ondo State High Court on a one-count information of murder contrary to Section 316 of the Criminal Code Law, Cap. 37, Vol. I, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria 2006. At the trial, the Prosecution called four witnesses and tendered five exhibits while the Appellant called no witness, but testified on his behalf. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge, convicted the Appellant for the offence of murder. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment hence this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
Issues Of Determination:
“Whether having regard to the state and nature of the evidence led by the prosecution, the offence of murder has been established against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?”
RATIONES
CHARGE OF MURDER – INGREDIENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE PROSECUTION IN A CHARGE FOR MURDER
“The Appellant in his brief of argument, had restated the law as to what ingredients should be established by the Prosecution when a case of murder is proferred against an accused person. For purposes of elucidation I shall restate them. They are a. That the deceased died b. That the death of the deceased was caused by the accused. c. That the act or action of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.” –
“It is apparent that the Court below however failed to advert his mind to certain guidelines and tests which such confessional statements must be subjected to before proceeding to convict the Appellant. They are 1. Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true? 2. Is it corroborated? 3. Are the relevant statements made in it of facts, true as far as they can be tested? 4. Was the prisoner one who had the opportunity of committing the offence? 5. Is his confession possible? 6. Is it consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved? Rabiu V. State (2010) 10 NWLR (PT. 1201) 127 at 161-162; Shande V. State (2005) 1 NWLR (PT. 907) 218 at 240-241 and R V. Sykes (1913) 1 CR. APP R. 233.”
“In Enewoh V. State 1990 NWLR (PT. 145) AT 569. Apata JSC (of blessed memory) restated the desirability of a person who allegedly identified the corpse of the deceased to the doctor to be called to testify as to the identification, unless the identity of the deceased can be inferred from the circumstances of the case.”
STATUS(ES) REFERRED TO
Not Available|
COUNSELS
D. A. Awosika, Esq. for Appellant(s)|Olorunfemi Ayegbusi, Esq. with him, Olusegun Femi Akeredolu, Esq. Assistant Chief Legal Officer Ministry of Justice, AkureFor Respondent(s)|
