CORAM
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
VICTOR ONYEAMECHI OKOH APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned at the High Court of Delta State for murder punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap 48 vol. ii, Laws of the defunct Bendel State 1976 applicable to Delta State.The Appellant was alleged to have murdered Patricia Okoh, his wife, on the 17th day of February, 2010 at Idumbiri Farm Road. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted as charged. Dissatisfied, he appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Still aggrieved, the Appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the lower court was right when it affirmed the trial court’s decision that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the evidence adduced before the court?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ONUS OF PROOF IN A CHARGE OF MURDER – ON WHO LIES THE ONUS OF PROOF IN A CHARGE OF MURDER?
“It is settled law which has become trite that in a charge of murder the onus of proof is on the prosecution to establish by evidence and beyond reasonable doubt, that the deceased died and, it was the unlawful act of the accused person that caused the death of the deceased and that act of the accused caused the death of the deceased which act was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm will be the probable consequence of that act. Of note is that all these three conditions must co-exist without any missing or marred by doubt, that it could be said that the charge has not been proved. I rely on Ogba vs The State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 222) 164; Nwosu vs The State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt 35)384.”PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – REQUIREMENT TO BE MET FOR PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO BE ESTABLISHED
“The Evidence Act, section 135 has provided the requirement to be met at which it would be taken that tne proof beyond reasonable doubt has been made and that is that the prosecution must establish by credible evidence the ingredients of the offence which are those three stated above and this evidential proof would be in any of the three ways being, credible evidence of prosecution witnesses or circumstantial evidence or by admissions and confession of the accused to the commission of the crime. ”PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION – REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERLY RAISING THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
“Provocation cannot just be raised and acknowledged without presenting the fact that the act for which the accused is charged occurred during the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation and the act committed before the cooling of passion. In this see the case of Uwagboe v.The State (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1102) 621 at 638”. PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
DEFENCES – A TRIAL COURT IS ONLY BOUND TO CONSIDER DEFENCES AVAILABLE FROM THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT.
“The trial court is only bound to consider defences available to the appellant from the evidence before it. The appellant on whom lies the burden of proving provocation neither raised the defence in Exhibit PI and P2 nor alluded to the defence in his evidence at trial. The lower court could not have considered the defence that was neither raised at the trial court nor raised as a fresh issue with its leave. See Nwuzoke v. The State (1988) 1 NSCC 361 and Gabriel v. State (1989) 3 NSCC 351.” PER M.D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION – EFFECT OF A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
“Provocation, unlike the defence of self defence, where it is found to avail an accused person; does not exonerate a killing, but reduces the offence and sentence in respect of the unlawful killing. PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION – REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERLY RAISING THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
“Provocation cannot just be raised and acknowledged without presenting the fact that the act for which the accused is charged occurred during the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation and the act committed before the cooling of passion. In this see the case of Uwagboe v. The State (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1102) 621 at 638”. PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT
“This Court only interferes with concurrent findings of fact if same are perverse. See lyaro v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt 69) 256. In the instant case, the findings of fact the appellant attacks are not.” PER M.D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
ONUS OF PROOF IN A CHARGE OF MURDER – ON WHO LIES THE ONUS OF PROOF IN A CHARGE OF MURDER?
“It is settled law which has become trite that in a charge of murder the onus of proof is on the prosecution to establish by evidence and beyond reasonable doubt, that the deceased died and, it was the unlawful act of the accused person that caused the death of the deceased and that act of the accused caused the death of the deceased which act was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm will be the probable consequence of that act. Of note is that all these three conditions must co-exist without any missing or marred by doubt, that it could be said that the charge has not been proved. I rely on Ogba vs The State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 222) 164; Nwosu vs The State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt 35)384.”PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – REQUIREMENT TO BE MET FOR PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT TO BE ESTABLISHED
“The Evidence Act, section 135 has provided the requirement to be met at which it would be taken that tne proof beyond reasonable doubt has been made and that is that the prosecution must establish by credible evidence the ingredients of the offence which are those three stated above and this evidential proof would be in any of the three ways being, credible evidence of prosecution witnesses or circumstantial evidence or by admissions and confession of the accused to the commission of the crime. ”PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED PURELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is certainly not the law that an accused person cannot be convicted purely on his confessional statement. For such a conviction to endure, however, the confessional statement must be cogent, direct and positive. Once so, being a clear admission of all the ingredients of the offence the accused stands trial for, a conviction arising from the confessional statement will, on appeal, be sustained. In Alli Dogo v. The State (2013} LPELR 20175 (SC) my learned brother Ngwuta, JSC, restated the principle thus:-
“Once there exists a confessional statement which is direct, cogent and unequivocal to the fact that the appellant murdered the deceased, the prosecution need not prove any of the three elements.” PER M.D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED PURELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is certainly not the law that an accused person cannot be convicted purely on his confessional statement. For such a conviction to endure, however, the confessional statement must be cogent, direct and positive. Once so, being a clear admission of all the ingredients of the offence the accused stands trial for, a conviction arising from the confessional statement will, on appeal, be sustained. In Alli Dogo v. The State (2013} LPELR 20175 (SC) my learned brother Ngwuta, JSC, restated the principle thus:-
“Once there exists a confessional statement which is direct, cogent and unequivocal to the fact that the appellant murdered the deceased, the prosecution need not prove any of the three elements.” PER M.D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION – EFFECT OF A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
“Provocation, unlike the defence of self defence, where it is found to avail an accused person; does not exonerate a killing, but reduces the offence and sentence in respect of the unlawful killing. PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Criminal Code Laws of Delta State.