SILAS UKADIKE VS THE STATE
(1973) LCN/1690(SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Wednesday, June 27, 1973
Case Number: SC. 70/1973
JUSTICES:LEWIS
ELIAS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBEKWE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
APPELLANTS
SILAS UKADIKE
RESPONDENTS
THE STATE
RATIO
THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY
Was the accused insane at the time that he killed the deceased? If I accept the defence that the accused was insane at the time of the murder, then accused would escape responsibility for the death of the deceased.” However, after reviewing the evidence of all the witnesses who appeared before him, the learned trial Judge observed that there was no evidence of history of insanity in the family of the accused, that all the evidence tendered to show that he was “a normally behaved person” except that on that occasion “that act of the accused in running into the bush soon after the murder was in my view an act more consistent with sanity than with insanity”, that although “the accused suffered from some delusion”, yet “such delusion to my mind cannot amount to mental infirmity sufficient to neutralise the capacity of the accused to control his actions before, during the subsequent to murder of the deceased”, that Dr. Iwenofu not being a psychiatrist could not give evidence “that the accused was in fact insane at the time he committed the murder”, and that he was “unable to find any evidence of provocation given to the accused by anybody”PER ELIAS, J.S.C.
ELIAS, CJN.. (Delivering the judgement of the Court)
In the High Court of Okigwe Judicial Division, the accused was convicted by Nwokedi, J., of the murder of one Cyril Ukadike on June 16, 1970, contrary to Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code. The facts, which are straight-forward, are these. The accused, a youngman of about 18 years of age, who was not known to have shown signs of abnormal behaviour before, woke up in the middle of the night previous to the date of committing the offence, and complained to his parents (2nd and 3rd P.Ws.) that his head was “hot and paining” him and that the “spirits” of his ancestors were harassing him. He was persuaded to go back to sleep and, in the following morning, his father went out to look for a “native doctor” to come and treat him. In the meantime, the accused attacked his younger sister, beating her up so much that blood flowed from her mouth as she lay on the ground. The mother (2nd P.W.), on seeing this, raised an alarm and rushed out into the street where she met one Edward Ezejiofor (1st P.W.), one of the accused’s former class teachers, who followed her home and who managed to separate the accused from his sister; the latter ran away soon thereafter. Ezejiofor himself was then pounced upon, was given several fist blows and had his dress torn up; he fought back and later got away, unsuccessfully pursued by the accused. Soon afterwards, Ezejiofor said he heard cries from the direction of the house to the effect that the accused had killed somebody. When he and other people arrived at the scene, they found the dead body of a boy lying on the ground with several matchet cuts. They saw the accused’s father and mother, but he himself had escaped into the bush and climbed up a tree nearby.
The accused’s mother (2nd P.W.) confirmed this whole story and added that he also gave his father (who was returning from a native doctor) a matchet cut on the head when the latter tried to stop him from hacking the deceased to death. The accused’s father (3rd P.W.) also confirmed most of the story, and both he and the 2nd P.W. expressed surprise at the sudden behaviour of the accused that morning. He (3rd P.W.) said that there was no history of insanity in his own family or in that of the accused’s mother. Patricia Ukadike (4th P.W.), another sister of the accused, gave a full eye-witness’s account of the whole incident. She said that the accused met her and the deceased as they were returning from the farm that morning, suddenly seized the latter’s matchet, and gave him several matchet cuts so that the deceased fell down and died there and then. As their father ran to the scene on hearing her raise an alarm, the accused dealt him a matchet cut and escaped into the bush until the police arrived, arrested him and took him away. The deceased’s body was then removed to the hospital for autopsy. The two police officers (5th and 6th P.Ws.) gave evidence of the investigation of the incident and the subsequent arrest of the accused. Corporal David Ogoke (5th P.W.) said that the accused was arrested in the bush after putting up some resistance, that he interviewed him immediately thereafter, and that the accused was “unable to make any coherent statement then as he was extremely restless and rolled himself on the ground all the time.” When he took him to the Mbano police station, another police officer (6th P.W.) took over from him the investigation of the case. The accused was later removed to the Owerri prisons. It does not appear that any statement was ever taken from the accused even after he had calmed down. Also, Dr. Umunna, who performed the postmortem on the deceased’s body at the Umunkwo Community Hospital, was not available to give evidence at the trial; there was evidence that his whereabouts were unknown and that no report of his post-mortem examination was available. PAGE| 2 There was accordingly no medical evidence of the cause of death of the deceased. Led in evidence by his counsel, the accused calmly said that he left school in 1967 after completing his Elementary Standard Six, that he later became a farmer, that he learnt from his mother (2nd P.W.) that the deceased who was his half-brother was dead, but that he could not recollect anything about the circumstances of the deceased’s death. He further said that he had no previous quarrel with the deceased, that it was from his mother that he also learnt of his attacks on his father, his younger sister and his former class teacher on the day of the incident, and that he was surprised and sorry when his mother told him that he killed the deceased. While he said, under cross-examination, that he remembered having been first taken to Mbano police station and later to the Owerri prisons where one Dr. Jeremiah Iwenofu (1st P.W.) of the Owerri General Hospital visited him on several occasions, he did not remember having killed anyone, but he would agree that it was wrong to kill someone. Dr. Owenofu testified that, about a month after the incident, he saw the accused for the first time in the Owerri General Hospital on August 18, 1970, in the course of his official duties. His evidence was thus summarised by the learned trial Judge: “He said that even at that time, the accused talked very glibly about killing someone as if killing a person was the right thing to do. At times, according to him, accused was incoherent and disorientated and appeared unable on several occasions to distinguish right from wrong. After observing the accused for sometime, he formed the impression that accused’s case was one for a pyschiatrist and recommended reference of accused’s case to that quarters. On the 17th March, 1972, he again saw the accused and by that time accused had become a completely different person from what he was when he saw him earlier. He now talked sense and was able to answer all his questions intelligently. He thought physical illness such as cerebral malaria could produce temporary insanity.” The learned trial Judge then observed that there was no evidence before him that the accused was even a victim of cerebral malaria; he, however, believed the evidence of the 3rd and the 4th P.W.s. and found as follows : “I am also satisfied from the evidence before me that the deceased died on the spot where he was attacked with matchet by the accused. Even though Doctor Umunna who performed the post-mortem examination was not available to give evidence of cause of death, I am satisfied that the deceased died from the injuries sustained from the matchet attack by the accused.” In our view, the material consideration was thus put by the learned trial Judge himself: “The question that arises is why did the accused kill the deceased? Was the accused insane at the time that he killed the deceased? If I accept the defence that the accused was insane at the time of the murder, then accused would escape responsibility for the death of the deceased.” However, after reviewing the evidence of all the witnesses who appeared before him, the learned trial Judge observed that there was no evidence of history of insanity in the family of the accused, that all the evidence tendered to show that he was “a normally behaved person” except that on that occasion “that act of the accused in running into the bush soon after the murder was in my view an act more consistent with sanity than with insanity”, that although “the accused suffered from some delusion”, yet “such delusion to my mind cannot amount to mental infirmity sufficient to neutralise the capacity of the accused to control his actions before, during the subsequent to murder of the deceased”, that Dr. Iwenofu not being a psychiatrist could not give evidence “that the accused was in fact insane at the time he committed the murder”, and that he was “unable to find any evidence of provocation given to the accused by anybody”. He, therefore, convicted the accused of the murder of the deceased. The present appeal has been brought against this decision. The only two grounds of appeal argued before us are as follows: “(1) That the learned trial Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant when there was a preponderance of evidence of insanity. (2) That the judgment is unreasonable unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.” Mr. Akinrele, learned counsel for the appellant, in his submission that there was preponderance of evidence of insanity on the part of the accused, set forth his argument by reference to the following four main points: (i) That there was abundant and uncontradicted evidence that the accused had in the middle of the night preceding the morning of the incident complained of the “spirits” of his ancestors worrying him, and also that his head was “hot” and “paining” him; (ii) That he was found in the morning following this complaint attacking everybody-sister, brother, father and teacher – without any apparent cause or reason; (iii) That when arrested by the police, he was unable to make any coherent statement because he was “extremely restless and rolled himself on the ground all the time”; and PAGE| 3 (iv) That he was seen by a medical doctor in the ordinary course of his duties looking after the prisoners in custody and found to be abnormal. It was his submission that the learned trial Judge, who found that all these facts were established, was wrong to have rejected them and convicted the accused. The learned trial Judge wanted Dr. Iwenofu to be a psychiatrist before his evidence could be “acceptable” to him as to the behaviour of the accused when, according to the learned counsel, any ordinary person such as a warder could have given such evidence. He further contended that the doctor’s evidence should not have been rejected merely because he saw the accused about one month af
