May 19, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2012) Legalpedia (CA) 51131 In the Court of Appeal HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT Tue Mar 20, 2012 Suit Number: CA/PH/258/2001 CORAM PARTIES OKECHI JEREMIAH APPELLANTS THE […]
CORAM
PARTIES
OKECHI JEREMIAH APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
On the 11th day of June 1987, the Appellant was said to have gone to the house of PW1 around 8pm and requested to know from the PW1 why PW1 asked him not to come to his house any longer. The PW1 asked the Appellant to go away in that he was tired. The Appellant refused to leave the house and an altercation ensued, which attracted the deceased who was the brother of PW1 to come to their place. The deceased tried to intervene in the quarrel but the Appellant picked offence with him and drew a dagger from his pocket, which he used in stabbing the deceased on the chest. The deceased fell and died immediately. The Appellant ran away from the scene but was arrested 4 days later in a railway station. In his own defence, the Appellant stated that he was called by the PW1 as he was returning from the market and he stopped in answer to the call but the PW1 and the deceased fought him and injured him; that it was the PW1 who dealt the fatal blow that killed the deceased. At the end of the trial, the Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to death. It is against the said Judgment that the Appellant appealed to this court
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was cogent enough and beyond reasonable doubt to sustain the conviction of the accused person for murder in view of the material contradictions in the said evidence. Whether the conviction of the accused person for murder can be sustained in the absence of medical evidence as to the consistency of the act of stabbing, credited to the accused with the injury allegedly sustained by the deceased. Whether the written statement credited to the accused was rightly admitted as a confession and acted upon in view of the suspicious nature of the document. Whether defences put up by or that were open to the accused person were adequately considered by the trial Court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
LAW OF EVIDENCE
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE- WHEN IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE CONTRADICTORY?
“The Supreme Court, in the case of Kenneth Ogoala v. The State (1991) 2 LRCN 660 at 679 held as follows:
“A piece of evidence is contradictory to another when it asserts or affirms the opposite of what that other asserts, and not necessarily when there are minor discrepancies in say, details between them. As I see it, contradiction between two pieces of evidence goes rather to the essentiality of something being or not being at the same time, whereas, minor discrepancies depend rather as the persons astuteness and capacity for observing details.”
LAW OF EVIDENCE
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE – DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE AND DISCREPANCY IN EVIDENCE
“The word “contradict” comes from the two latin words contra (opposite) and dicere (to say). Two pieces of evidence contradict one another when they are by themselves inconsistent. On the other hand, a discrepancy may occur where a piece of evidence stops short of, or contains a little more than what the other piece of evidence says or contains is minor discrepancies in details.”
LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
MINOR DISCREPANCIES – WHETHER MINOR DISCREPANCIES IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES DESTROYS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES
“On the other hand, minor discrepancies between previous written statements and subsequent oral testimony are to be expected and do not destroy the credibility of the witnesses. Indeed, when such occur, it may lead to suspicion that the witness has been tutored. See Ayo Gabriel V. The State (1989) 5NWLR (Pt. 122) 457.”
LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
CONTRADICTION – INSTANCE WHEN CONTRADICTIONS MAY BE FATAL TO A PROSECUTION’S CASE
“For a contradiction to be fatal to the prosecution case, it must go to the substance or root of the case and not of a minor nature as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge in the instant case.”
LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
MEDICAL EVIDENCE- WHETHER MEDICAL REPORT IS A SINE QUA NON TO THE CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“In Tonara Bakuri v. The State (Supra), the Supreme Court held that in cases of this nature where a man was attacked with a lethal weapon and died on the spot, it is hardly necessary to prove the cause of death. It can properly be inferred that the wound inflicted on the deceased caused the death. See Garos Gwashi v. The State (Supra) where it was held that where the cause of death is obvious, medical evidence ceases to be of any practical or legal necessity in homicide cases. Such situation arises where death was instantaneous or nearly so.
The rational for this proposition which is founded on logic and common sense is that since the act of the accused is the most proximate event to the death of the deceased, it could be regarded as the deciding factor even where it may be taken as merely contributory to the death of the deceased. As long as the intention to kill or to cause grievously bodily harm has been established the intention for the offence of murder is complete. See Eric Uyo v. A.G. Bendel State (Supra) And Mathew Oke Onwumere v. The State (Supra).
In the instant case, the Appellant tried to shift the act that led to the death of the deceased on the PW1. That it was PW1 while trying to strike him the second time and he dodged that the fatal blow landed on the deceased that killed him instantly. The learned trial Judge disbelieved this story by the Appellant. In any event, this story was not corroborated. I also disbelieved the Appellant that it was the PW1 that dealt the fatal blow that killed the deceased. It was the Appellant that stabbed the deceased with a dagger, a lethal weapon on the chest region a vital part of the body and he fell down and died instantly. It needs no medical evidence to prove that it was the stabbing on the chest region, a vital part of the body that killed the deceased. The law remains settled that the medical report is not a requisite for establishing a cause of death in a murder charge. Once the prosecution had established the death of the deceased and provided proof that the death is as a result of the unlawful and intentional act of the accused; medical report ceases to be a sine-qua-non to the conviction of the accused person. In the instant case, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 had provided direct and satisfactory evidence of not only the death of the deceased, but also that the death followed from after the unlawful and intentional act of the Appellant. See Adamu v. Kano N. A. (1956) SCNLR 65: Tonara Bakuri v. State (1965) NWLR 163; and Micheal v. The State (2008) 13 NWLR (PT 1104) 361 AT 377. In other words, where facts exist which sufficiently show the cause of death without doubt, a medical report showing cause of death is not necessary and may be dispensed with. See Effiong v. The State (1998) 8 NWLR (PT 562) 362: Gago V. The State (2001) 3 WRN 159.”
LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- TEST TO BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE VOLUNTARINESS OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“Where an accused person says, he did not make the statement voluntarily, it behoves on the trial judge to conduct trial within trial to at least determine the voluntariness or otherwise of the statement before admitting it in evidence. In the second situation where the accused person says he did not make the statement, the trial judge can go ahead and admit the statements and wait until the end of the trial to determine whether the accused made the statement or not. See Queen v. Igwe (1988) 5 NWLR (PT 94) 225.
In the instant case, it clear that the case of the Appellant falls within the category wherein the judge would admit the statement and wait until the end of the trial to determine whether he made the statement or not. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge was perfectly right in applying the test laid down in Kanu v. Queen (Supra) to determine whether the Appellant made the confessional statement or not. The tests being:-
1. Is there anything outside the confession to show it is true?
2. Is it corroborated?
3. Are there statements made in it of fact so far as they can be tested?
4. Is the accused person a man who had opportunity of committing the murder?
5. Is it consistent with other facts, which have been ascertained and which have been proved?.”
The learned trial Judge tested the Appellant’s confessional statement and answered all the questions in the affirmative. I agree with him. The facts surrounding the circumstances of this case show that this statement is true. This is also corroborated by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. There are also statements made in it of fact as they can be tested as far as the circumstances of this case are concerned and indeed the Appellant had the opportunity of committing the murder by going to the house of PW1 to accost him and brought out a dagger to stab the deceased on the chest, who fell down and died instantly and this is consistent with the facts which have been proved by the prosecution.
It is settled law that a confession does not become in admissible as evidence merely because the accused person denies having made it to the police. A confession by a person under arrest is not to be treated differently from other confession. See Ikemson v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 100) 405; Ekpenyong v. The State (1991) 6 NWLR (PT. 200) 683; Ogugu V. The State (1990) 2 NWLR (PT 134) 539, AND Akpan v. State (1990) 7 NWLR (PT 160) 101.”
LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DUTY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON WHO RESILES FROM HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is now settled that if an accused person resiles from his confessional statement, it is his function to explain to the court as part of his defence, the reason for the inconsistency. In such circumstance, if he is to be believed, the accused has to lead evidence to establish that his confessional statement could not be correct. It may be that he was not correctly recorded or that in fact he did not make the statement or that he was unsettled in mind at the time the statement was made or that he was induced to do so. That explanation must come from him without prompting from the prosecution. It is in rare cases that a Court would attach credence to the evidence of an accused person as against his extra judicial statement where he fails to show that the extra judicial statement could not be correct. See Mathew Oke Onwumere V. The State (Supra).”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE
DEFENCES – DUTY OF COURT TO CONSIDER ALL DEFENCES AVAILABLE TO AN ACCUSED PERSON
“It is trite law that in a criminal trial, any defence raised by an accused person must be considered however stupid. It is also settled that law that any defence to which an accused person is on the evidence entitled to should be considered however stupid or unreasonable. See Aigbadion V. The State (2000) 4 SCNJ 1 at 13 and Oforele V. The State (2000) 7 SCNJ 162 AT 164.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE
DEFENCE OF SELF-DEFENCE- CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE SATISFIED FOR THE DEFENCE OF SELF-DEFENCE TO AVAIL AN ACCUSED PERSON
“In any case, the Appellant has not satisfied any of the conditions that must be satisfied by an accused person before defence of self defence can avail him as laid down in the case of Omoregwe V. State (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 458) 230 AT 245. These conditions are as follows:
1. That the accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter;
2. There must be present an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm, either real or so apparent as to create honest belief of an existing necessity.
3. There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat; and
4. There must have been a necessity for taking life.
In order to sustain the defence, all the above ingredients must co-exist and be established.” –
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE
GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – DUTY ON THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
“In criminal trials, the prosecution has the duty to prove the guilt of the accused person which it accuses of committing the crime and the burden never shift beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 138 (1) of the Evidence Act and 36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) (as amended); Njovens V. State (1973) NWLR 331; Ameh V. State (1973) 7 SC 27. Miller V. Minister Of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 372: Kalu V. The State (1988) 4 NWLR (PT 90) 503: Ayo V. State (2006) 6 WRN 134: Sam V. C. O. P. (2009)
ALL FWLR (PT 450) 760 AT 769.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, WORDS AND PHRASES
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“In the case of Miller V. Minister Of Pensions (Supra), it was held that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt and if the evidence is strong against a man, as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible but not in the list probable; the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, once the proof of a case as offered by the prosecution drowns the presumption of innocence of the accused, the court is entitled to convict him although there could exist shadows of doubt. The moment the proof by the prosecution renders the presumption of innocence on the part of the accused useless and pins him down as the owner of the mens rea or actus reus or both, the prosecution has discharged the burden placed on it by Section 138 (3) of the Evidence Act, Cap 112 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990. See Diebe V. State (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 363) 83; and Okoh V. State (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 453) 1358 at 1400.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, WORDS AND PHRASES
CHARGE OF MURDER – WHEN IS A CHARGE OF MURDER ESTABLISHED?
“A charge of murder is established when the prosecution proves the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt:
1. That the deceased died
2. That the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the accused
3. That the killing was unlawful
4. That the act of the accused was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.
See Ogba V. The State (1992) 2 NWLR (PT 222) 146: State V. Aigbangee (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 297) 29; Oladipupo V. The State (1994) 6 NWLR (PT 298) 131; Okeke V. The State (1999) 2 NWLR (PT 590) 253, Ogbu V. The State (1992) 8 NWLR (PT 259) 255, Igago V. The State (1999) 14 NWLR (pt 637) 1; Onyia V. The State (2006) 11 NWLR 267 AT 293 and Abirifon V. State (2009) 35 WRN 37 AT 79.”
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE,
SELF-DEFENCE – PURPORT OF SELF-DEFENCE
“The purport of self-defence in law is to negative the existence of an offence, so that when a person kills another in self-defence, the killing does not amount to an offence but leads to a total exoneration of the accused. Where the defence is established in a criminal trial, the accused will be entitled to a discharge and acquittal. See section 286 of the Criminal Code and Nwaekweghinya V. The State Vol. 21 NSCQR pg. 570 at pg. 590-591 per Belgore, JSC (as he then was). However, for the defence to avail an accused person, there must exist at the time the killing took place, reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm and the deceased reasonably believed the act of killing was necessary for his own protection. In other words, the act of the accused person must be that of a reasonable man placed in similar situation. It is not measured on the temperament of the individual killer. See Udofia v. The State (1984) 2 S.C. pg. 139 and R v. Onyeamaizu (1959) N.M.L.R. Pg. 93.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Criminal Code|Evidence Act, 2011|