CHIEF SAIPEREMOR PREYE AMAREMOR v. THE STATE

CORAM

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

CHIEF SAIPEREMOR PREYE AMAREMOR APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, who was an armourer with the National Intelligent Agency of the rank equivalent to that of a Commissioner of Police, attended a burial at his village in Buluo-Orua town in Sagbama Local Government Area of Bayelsa State with his service pistol contrary to the regulation of his agency. The Appellant went to a neighbouring community in the company of others, and fired his pistol twice towards the direction of the river and turned to the deceased and shot him in the chest. The Appellant was charged at the trial Court for murder under Section 319 of the Criminal Code Law of Eastern Nigeria, 1963 applicable in Bayelsa State and notwithstanding his plea of accidental discharge, he was convicted and sentenced to death. Aggrieved by the trial Court’s decision, the Appellant appealed to Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed. Still dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether having regard to the circumstances in which the deceased Chief Tuomor Obiri met his death in a penetrating through and through bullet wound on 24th November, 2001, the defence of accident was available to the AppellantWhether the essential elements of murder and the guilt of the Appellant were established beyond reasonable doubt by S.138 (1) of the Evidence Act ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PLEA-WHEN AVAILABLE TO AN APPELLANT

“Plea avails an appellant only where he shows the findings he appeals against to be perverse.” PER DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC.

ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE-ATTITUDE OF AN APPELLATE COURT THERETO

“The appellate court will not lightly interfere with same unless compelling reasons are shown.” PER AFOLABI, JSC

OFFENCES -MURDER-WHAT A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION

“It is settled beyond controversy that to secure a conviction on a charge of murder under Section 319 of the Criminal Code, the prosecution must prove
(i) That the deceased had died
(ii) That the death of the deceased was caused by the accused, and
(iii) That act or omission 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”. PER MOHAMMED, JSC

“PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT”- WHAT AMOUNTS TO

“It must be stressed that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof to the hilt as stated in Miller V Minister of Pension (1947 ) 2 All E.R. 371.” PER MOHAMMED, JSC

WITNESSES-MATERIAL WITNESSES-WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS A DUTY TO CALL ALL MATERIAL WITNESSES

“The law is trite that the prosecution has no duty to call and fields of all known material witnesses that it may consider necessary for proof of its case beyond reasonable doubt.” PER MOHAMMED, JSC

WITNESSES-WHETHER BLOOD RELATIONS CAN TESTIFY FOR THE PROSECUTION

“It must be stressed that there is no law which precludes a blood relation of a deceased person from testifying for the prosecution. What a court must consider as an abiding fact is the truthfulness of the witness touching on his integrity, veracity and knowledge on the matter.” PER MOHAMMED, JSC

DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT-WHEN AN EVENT CAN QUALIFY AS ACCIDENTAL UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

“For an event to qualify as accidental under the section relied upon by the Appellant in this case, it must be a surprise to ordinary man of prudence. That is to say, a surprise to all sober and reasonable people.” PER MOHAMMED, JSC

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THE TRIAL COURT-WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE THEREWITH

“It remains the primary functions of the trial court to evaluate evidence and decide what probative value to attach to what piece of oral evidence. This is so because it is the court that had the opportunity of seeing, hearing and observing the witnesses in the course of their testimonies. An appellate court only steps in to evaluate evidence where the trial court failed in taking the advantage it had to discharge this primary duty or wrongly discharged the said function, to avert miscarriage of justice.” PER DATTIJO MUHAMMED JSC.

CASES CITED

Adelumola  v The State ( 1988) 1 N.W.L.R (Pt. 73) 683 at 692-693Adekunle vs the state (2006) 4 NWLR (PT 1000) 717 @737Anaeze v Anyaso (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 1Aliu Bello & 13 Ors v Attorney General of Oyo State (1986) 5 N.W.L.R (Pt.45) 828Gira vs the state (1996) 4 NWLR (PT 448) 375Iman v. Okogbe (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt 316) 159Iromantu v The State (1964) 1 All N.L.R 311Oduneye v The State (2001) F.W.L.R (Pt. 38) 1203 at1218Oforlete Nere v The State (2000) 12 N.W.L.R (Pt. 681) 415Ogba v The State (1992) 2N.W.L.R (Pt. 222) 164Uguru v The State (2002) 9 N.W.L.R  (Pt.771) 90

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Criminal Code Law of Eastern Nigeria 1963

Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT