AMOBI v. STATE
(2022)LCN/16211(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, March 30, 2022
CA/AW/34C/2020
Before Our Lordships:
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Court of Appeal
Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal
Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
CHUKWUEBUKA AMOBI APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF ATTEMPTED MURDER
Section 275 (a) of the Criminal Code Cap. 36 Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria Vol. 2 1991 provides as follows:
“Any person who –
(a) Attempts unlawfully to kill another;
Or
(b) With intent unlawfully to kill another does any act, or omits to do any act which it is his duty to do, such act or omission being of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.”
Section 288 of the Criminal Code (supra) provides that:
“Any person who, with intent to maim, disfigure or disable any person, or to do some grievous harm to any person, or to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person –
(a) …
(b) …
(c) …
(g) Unlawfully casts or throws any such fluid or substance at or upon any person, or otherwise applies any such fluid or substance to the person or any person;
is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.”
This Court in ESSIEN V. THE STATE (2016) LPELR 41179 stated that;
In a charge of Attempted Murder the prosecution is expected to lead credible evidence to show:
(1) The intention of the Appellant to kill.
(2) The execution of such intention by an overt act.
(3) An intervening act from fulfilling such intention. PER NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW ON WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE
A person is said to ATTEMPT:
“If a person intends to commit an offence and in the process of putting his intention into execution by means he has adopted to its fulfillment and thereby manifest his intention by some overt act, but actually falls short of his intention to commit that offence either through an intervening act or involuntary obstruction, he is said to commit the attempt of that offence.”
See JEGEDE V. THE STATE (2003) 3 ACLR PG. 86.
To constitute an attempt to commit an offence, the act must be immediately connected with the commission of the particular offence charged and must be something more than preparation for the commission of the offence. The offender must have crossed the “Rubicon and burnt his boat.” The acts proved against the offender must be such as would show that he had done all he needed to do to complete the act before he was stopped.
See SHURUMO V. STATE (2010) 19 NWLR (PT. 1226) PG. 73. PER NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal was filed by the Appellant who was arraigned before the Awka division of the Anambra State High Court presided over by P. N. T. Otti J, on an information of two count charge of Attempted Murder contrary to Section 275 (a) of the Criminal Code and also causing grievous bodily harm contrary to Section 288 (g) of the same Criminal Code.
In a considered judgment delivered on the 17th day of April, 2019, the Appellant was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to Thirty years imprisonment on count one and Twenty Five years imprisonment with hard labour, with the sentences to run concurrently.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS:
The Appellant and the victim, Mrs. Christiana Amobi are members of Ogoegbunam Amobi family of Iyienu Ogidi, in Anambra State. The victim Mrs. Amobi narrated how in the night of the 10th day of June, 2015 the Appellant poured Acid on her. The Appellant stated that he poured Acid on a Black Pussy Cat which always came to his room. That after some hours the victim was heard shouting that the Appellant has killed her. The Appellant absconded and only showed up when the police arrested his mother.
The lower Court in its Judgment at pages 117 to 129 of the Records convicted the Appellant on both counts and sentenced him accordingly.
This appeal revolves round the said conviction and sentence.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant C. A. Nwokike, Esq. formulated four issues for determination as follows:
1. “Whether the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant in evidence as Exhibits F, K – K1 are confessional statements on a charge of Attempted Murder under Section 275 (a) of the Criminal Code Cap. 36 Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria Vol. 2 1991 and grievous bodily harm under Section 288 (g) of the Criminal Code Cap. 36 Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria Vol. 2 1991 to warrant conviction of the Appellant.
2. Whether the lower Court was right in its view that there was unexplained failure by the Appellant to produce the Pussy Cat he poured acid on or its carcass/or remains which according to the lower Court “raise a presumption that the Appellant with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm” deliberately poured acid on the victim.
3. Whether in the circumstance of the uncertainty based on Police investigation report, the evidence of PW1, the count two of the amended charge and the absence of proof by the Prosecution on what caused injury to Mrs. Christiana Amobi, the lower Court was not wrong in arriving at the conclusion that it was acid that was poured on the said Mrs. Christiana Amobi and caused her injury.
4. Whether the decision of the lower Court is not unreasonable having regard to the evidence before the Court.”
Learned Counsel for the Respondent J. O. Nwankiti Esq. Principal State Counsel on the other hand distilled a sole issue for determination thus:
“Whether the trial Court was correct in convicting the Appellant for the offences of Attempted Murder contrary to Section 275 (a) of the Criminal Code of Anambra State, 1991 and grievous bodily harm contrary to Section 288 (g) of the Criminal Code.”
The issues raised by both Counsel can conveniently be compressed into one straight forward issue, it is:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial Court was right in holding that the Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to justify the conviction of the Appellant for Attempted Murder and causing grievous bodily harm.”
Taking the issues he formulated, learned Counsel for the Appellant C. A. Nwokike, Esq contended that from the clear and unambiguous words in the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant vis-à-vis the charge against him that it was obvious that the Appellant did not make a confessional statement regarding the charge against him.
He argued that had the lower Court properly considered the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant especially Exhibit K1 and the evidence of the Appellant, and placed right probative value on it, the trial Court would not have come to the conclusion that there was unexplained failure by the Appellant to produce the Pussy Cat he poured acid on or its carcass or remains.
Counsel submitted that the lower Court failed to consider the circumstance of the uncertainty of what gave the PW2 injury based on Police investigation report, evidence of PW1, absence of Medical evidence and thus came to the erroneous conclusion that it was the acid poured on the victim (PW2) by the Appellant that caused the injury. Reacting to the above argument, learned Counsel for the Respondent, J. O. Nwankiti Esq. posited that the Appellant in his testimony in Court testified that he threw the acid on the victim Mrs. Christiana Amobi believing that he was throwing the acid at a Cat.
Counsel also argued that the Appellant made confessional statements which were tendered and admitted as F, K & K1 to the effect that he was the one who threw acid on the victim believing that she was a Cat. Therefore, he posited, the Appellant by his act intended to kill the victim and or permanently disfigure, maim or disable her. He therefore opined that the trial Court was well within the law to have convicted and sentenced the Appellant accordingly.
Both Counsel cited numerous authorities to drive home their points.
Section 275 (a) of the Criminal Code Cap. 36 Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria Vol. 2 1991 provides as follows:
“Any person who –
(a) Attempts unlawfully to kill another;
Or
(b) With intent unlawfully to kill another does any act, or omits to do any act which it is his duty to do, such act or omission being of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.”
Section 288 of the Criminal Code (supra) provides that:
“Any person who, with intent to maim, disfigure or disable any person, or to do some grievous harm to any person, or to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of any person –
(a) …
(b) …
(c) …
(g) Unlawfully casts or throws any such fluid or substance at or upon any person, or otherwise applies any such fluid or substance to the person or any person;
is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.”
This Court in ESSIEN V. THE STATE (2016) LPELR 41179 stated that;
In a charge of Attempted Murder the prosecution is expected to lead credible evidence to show:
(1) The intention of the Appellant to kill.
(2) The execution of such intention by an overt act.
(3) An intervening act from fulfilling such intention.
At page 89 of the Records, PW2 who doubled as both victim and eye witness narrated how on the 10th day of June, 2015 as she sat beside her door, a substance was poured on her body, she turned and saw the Appellant and she raised alarm. The Appellant had matches. That she continued shouting the Appellant’s name until she passed out and found herself in the Hospital eventually.
While the Appellant’s defence was that he poured the acid which he already bought and kept in his house on a Cat, the victim PW2 apart from making herself available by testifying in person, tendered photographs to show how the Appellant maimed and disfigured her by pouring acid on her. The victim even lost one of her eyes permanently as a result of the acid bath.
The Appellant in his testimony in Court did not deny using Acid. He confessed that he threw Acid on a black Cat and that the Acid was kept near his room. It was therefore obvious that the Appellant kept the acid near his room waiting for the opportunity to use it on the victim, PW2.
The opportunity provided itself when he sighted his step-Mother, Mrs. Christiana Amobi and decided to give her acid bath.
The Appellant therefore left no one in doubt that he intended to unlawfully kill and or maim the victim Mrs. Christiana Amobi. The Appellant is taken to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts. He knew the result of pouring acid on a mortal and decided to damn the consequences.
A person is said to ATTEMPT:
“If a person intends to commit an offence and in the process of putting his intention into execution by means he has adopted to its fulfillment and thereby manifest his intention by some overt act, but actually falls short of his intention to commit that offence either through an intervening act or involuntary obstruction, he is said to commit the attempt of that offence.”
See JEGEDE V. THE STATE (2003) 3 ACLR PG. 86.
To constitute an attempt to commit an offence, the act must be immediately connected with the commission of the particular offence charged and must be something more than preparation for the commission of the offence. The offender must have crossed the “Rubicon and burnt his boat.” The acts proved against the offender must be such as would show that he had done all he needed to do to complete the act before he was stopped.
See SHURUMO V. STATE (2010) 19 NWLR (PT. 1226) PG. 73.
The prosecution at the trial Court was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant poured acid on Mrs. Christiana (PW2) the victim. The acid according to the Appellant himself was kept near his room in preparation for the appropriate time to use the acid. He used it the moment he sighted his step-Mother showing that the acid was meant to be used on his step-Mother and no other person. It was therefore very obvious that the Appellant intended to kill the victim for he couldn’t have poured acid on a human being and expect that person to be alive.
The defence by the Appellant that he poured the acid on a black Cat and not on the victim is very juvenile, a fairy tale of a very unintelligent and heartless person.
The intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm can be inferred from the nature of the weapon used which in this case was acid. Acid is very corrosive which can kill or cause excessive damage to the human body if the victim is lucky to be alive. The use of acid on a human being could be likened to a chemical weapon. It is unimaginable that the Appellant could pour acid on his step-Mother and expect any Court to show him mercy. The learned trial Judge was therefore well within the law to have convicted and sentenced the heartless Appellant accordingly.
After reviewing the evidence and painstakingly evaluating same, the learned trial Judge at page 128 of the Record made the following comments:
“Given the magnitude of the harm caused the victim, in this case, Mrs. Christiana Amobi, which includes the loss of one eye, great facial and bodily distortions, etc, the Defendant deserves the maximum sentence as prescribed by the law i.e the criminal code …”
I agree entirely with the above comment by the learned trial Judge. The above comment very well captured and summarized the callousness of the Appellant and the magnitude of offence. The appellant deserves no mercy whatsoever.
In sum, this appeal is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
The sole issue is resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent. The Judgment of the trial Court in Charge No HID/27C/2016 delivered on the 17th day of April, 2019, by P.N.T. Otti, J, of the Awka division of the Anambra State High Court is hereby affirmed.
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, CHIOMA E. NWOSU-IHEME, PhD-JCA and I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions in disallowing the Appeal as completely lacking in merit. I subscribe to the consequential orders made thereto.
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage to read in advance the lead judgment of my learned brother CHIOMA NWOSU-IHEME, JCA in appeal NO. CA/AW/34C/2020.
His lordship has adequately and properly considered the sole issue raised in this appeal. I am in complete agreement with my learned brother that this appeal is bereft of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment of the lower Court is therefore hereby affirmed.
Appearances:
C. A. Nwokike, For Appellant(s)
J. O. Nwankiti, For Respondent(s)
