M. DIKKO ESQ v. ABUBAKAR M. MACHIKA
April 11, 2025HON. BASSEY ETIM V HON. BASSEY ALBERT AKPAN & ORS
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018-97) Legalpedia (SC) 76211
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Fri Jul 6, 2018
Suit Number: SC.724/2013
CORAM
PARTIES
SGT. KALEJAIYE OLA APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
On the 23rd of June, 2003, the Appellant accosted the said Paul Erimafo (deceased) and arrested him for straying into the premises of the Government chalets where the former was on guard duty. He led his captive to the residence of one Dr. Erhabor who assisted him in carrying the suspect in a Peugeot 505 car to the Government House Benin City. On reaching there, Police officers on duty directed the appellant to carry the suspect to the nearest Police station. On the way to the nearest Police station, a scuffle ensued between the Appellant and the deceased. Dr. Erhabor then parked his car and got out of it. The scuffle between the Appellant and the deceased attracted the mobile Policemen and other security staff at the Chief Judge’s residence. The mobile policemen rushed to the scene and intervened. Both the Appellant and the deceased then introduced themselves. They each narrated their stories to the mobile policemen. The Appellant alleged that the deceased was struggling with him in order to retrieve his riffle from him. The deceased, rising up his hands, denied the allegation. The Appellant then fired two shots from his riffle, at the left leg of the deceased who fell down and groaning in pains. The Appellant rushed to report a case of armed robbery against the deceased, at the Edo State Police C.I.D. Later, the Appellant came along with some police officers to pick the deceased. On the way to the Aideyan police Station, the deceased died and the Appellant became an accused person. The Appellant was arraigned, tried, convicted and sentenced to death by hanging at the trial court. Aggrieved by the above decision, the Appellant appealed at the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Further aggrieved, the Appellant has appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the trial court holding that the Prosecution did prove the offence of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROOF- PRINCIPLE OF LAW ON THE STANDARD AND ONUS OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL
“As generally expected both counsel in this matter are ad idem on the trite principle of law that the standard of proof in criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt and that the onus of proof of guilt of an accused person rests on the prosecution. This is so because by section 36(5) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.”
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT- MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“May I state clearly that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all Shadow of doubt? It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence, a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. It is not proof to the hilt. See Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 3 All ER 373, Amaremor v. The State (2014) 10 NWLR (pt.1414) 1, Nwaburuocha v. The state (2011) 6 NWLR (pt. 1242) 170, Alabi v. The state (1993) 7 NWLR (pt.307) 511, Akinlolu V. the State (2015) LPELR – 25986 (SC), Lori & anor v. The State (1980) 12 NSCC 269, Oseni V. The State (2012) 5 NWLR (pt. 1293) 351.”
OFFENCE OF MURDER – INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION
“This court has held in a plethora of cases that to sustain a conviction in a charge of murder, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. That is to say:-
1.That the deceased died.
2.That it was the unlawful act or omission of the accused person that caused the death of the deceased and,
3.That the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.
See Okeke v. The State (1996) 2 NWLR (pt 590) 246, Adekunle v. The State (2206) All FWLR (pt 332) 1452, Jimmy v. The State (2013) 18 NWLR (pt 1586) 229, Asuquo V. The State (2016) LPELR – 40597 (SC).”
CROSS EXAMINATION – IMPLICATION OF A FAILURE TO CROSS EXAMINE A WITNESS ON A MATERIAL FACT
“In Patrick Oforlete v The State, (2000) LPELR – 2270 (SC) at pp. 24 – 25, this Court stated the position of the law on failure to cross-examine a witness on material particular as follows:-
…Where the adversary fails to cross-examine a witness upon a particular matter, the implication is that he accepts the truth of that matter as led in evidence. See Akinwunmi v. Idowu (1980) 3-4 108… Bello Emeka (1981) 1 SC 101 … After an, the noble act of cross-examination constitutes a lethal legal weapon in the hands of the adversary to enable him effect the demolition of the case of the opposing party, it is therefore good practice for counsel not only to put across his client’s case through cross-examination, he should, as a matter of the utmost necessity, use the opportunity to negative the credit of that witness whose evidence is under fire. Plainly, it is unsatisfactory if not suicidal bad practice for counsel to neglect to cross-examine a witness after his evidence-in-chief in order to contradict him or impeach his credit while being cross-examined but attempt at doing so only by calling other witness of witnesses thereafter. That is demonstrably wrong and will not even feebly dent that unchallenged evidence by counsel leading evidence through other witness to controvert the unchallenged evidence.
See also Gaji & ors v. Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (pt 823) 583, Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (1988) 1 NWLR (pt 70) 325, (1988) 2 SCNJ 146, Egwumi V The State (2013) 13 NWLR (pt 1372) 525.”
DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT- EFFECT OF PLEADING THE DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT
“Let me add that the accused person who pleads accident disputes only the mens rea, not the actus reus of the offence. In other words, he admits the actus reus by implication on his plea of accident: Iromantu v. The State (1964) 1 ALL N.L.R. 311; Chukwu v. The State (1992) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 217) 225 at 269. The defence of accident avails the accused only for the purpose of exoneration from criminal responsibility: Braide v. The State (1997) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 504) 141 at 150.”
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS – CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS
“My Lords, it has long been settled that this court will, readily, upset concurrent findings of lower courts where there are exceptional circumstances, such as, where the findings are perverse; where there was a miscarriage of justice or where a principle of Law or procedure was not followed, Ogbu v. State [1992] 8 NWLR (pt. 295) 255; Igago v State [1999] 14 NWLR (pt 637) 1; Adeyemi v The State [1991] 1 NWLR (pt. 170) 679; Adeyeye v The State (2013) LPELR -19913 (SC) 46; Akpabo v State [1994] 7 NWLR (pt 359) 635; Ejikeme v Okonkwo [1994] 8 NWLR (pt 362) 266.”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|Criminal Code Cap 48 vol. 11 Laws of Bendel state of Nigeria, 1976|
