EZEOKE v. STATE (2020)

EZEOKE v. STATE

(2020)LCN/14761(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, November 04, 2020

CA/E/04C/2018

RATIO

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

CRIMINAL LAW: BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES

To succeed therefore, onus rests on the prosecution to establish the criminal allegation beyond reasonable doubt. This degree of proof is not light but at the same time it does not imply proof beyond any shadow of doubt. This degree of proof is achieved once all the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are established beyond reasonable doubt otherwise the accused person will be acquitted. See AKALEZI VS. THE STATE (1993) 2 NWLR (PT. 273) 1 at 13, NASIRU VS. STATE (1999) LPELR-1945(SC) and BRIGHT VS. STATE (2012) 8 NWLR (PT. 1302) 279. PER KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

CRIMINAL LAW: REQUIREMENT OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL IN AN ALLEGATION OF MURDER

The allegation here is murder, therefore the evidence adduced at trial must establish that the deceased is really dead, that her death was from a cause attributable to the Appellant, that the act or omission of the Appellant which resulted in the death of the deceased was intentional knowing that death or grievous bodily harm could occur and that the Appellant was not availed of any justifiable defence. See OKEKE VS THE STATE (1999) 2 NWLR (PT 590) 246 at 273, AKINSUWA VS. STATE (2019) LPELR-47621(SC), AKINLOLU VS THE STATE (2015) LPELR- 25986 (SC), OGEDENGBE VS THE STATE (2014) 12 NWLR (PT. 1421) 338, CHUKWUNYERE VS. STATE (2017) LPELR-43725(SC) and STATE VS. SUNDAY(2019) LPELR-46943(SC). PER KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE: NATURE OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE

But then what is hearsay evidence?
Pursuant to Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 2011 “37 hearsay is a statement (a) Oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding, or (b) contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatever proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of providing the truth of the matter stated in it.” Evidence must be direct as a witness would be disallowed from asserting the veracity of what he did not see, hear, perceive or have knowledge of directly. It is hearsay to assert the truth of what a witness was told by some other person who had direct knowledge of the facts and hearsay evidence is inadmissible pursuant to Section 38 of the said Evidence Act (supra) unless covered by the exceptions in the said Evidence Act. See A.G. RIVERS STATE V A.G. AKWA-IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1248) 31, EDOSA & ANOR VS.OGIEMWANRE (2018) LPELR-46341(SC), ASAKE VS NIG. ARMY COUNCIL & ANOR (2006) LPELR-5427(CA) andOJO V. GHARORO & ORS(2006) LPELR-2383(SC). PER KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
CONFESSION: APPROPRIATE TIME TO OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

The appropriate time to object to the admission of a confessional statement is at the point of tendering. SeeIFARAMOYE VS. STATE (2017) LPELR-42031(SC) and OGUDO VS STATE (2011) LPELR-860 (SC). PER KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

CONFESSION: TESTS FOR VALIDITY OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

The proper step as was carried out by the learned trial Judge was to subject them to tests of validity to ascertain as follows:
(i) whether there is any evidence outside the confession to show that it is true;
(ii) whether it is corroborated no matter how slightly;
(iii) Whether the facts contained therein so far as can be tested are true;
(iv) Whether the accused had an opportunity to commit an offence;
(v) whether the confession of the accused person was possible and
(vi) Whether the confession was consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved. SeeUBIERHO VS. STATE (2005) 2 SC (PT 1) 18 at 21-22, NSOFOR & ANOR VS STATE (2005) ALL FWLR (PT.242) 397 at 411-412 and STATE VS. ISAH & ORS (2012) LPELR-15519(SC). PER KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Ignatius Igwe Agube Justice of the Court of Appeal

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

OKORO EZEOKE APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ebonyi State, Ivo Judicial Division, delivered on the 18th November, 2019 by CHIMA J.

The Appellant was arraigned on one count of allegedly murdering his mother on the 25th July, 2008 at Amachi Akaeze in Ivo Judicial Division of Ebonyi State, to which he pleaded not guilty.

At the trial, two witnesses testified for the prosecution while the Appellant testified from the witness box as the sole witness for his defence. After taking final addresses from the respective counsel for the two sides, the learned trial Judge delivered a considered judgment as aforesaid on the 18th November, 2016 wherein he found the Appellant guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

Exercising his constitutional right of appeal, the Appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court via a Notice of Appeal filed on the 6th January, 2017 containing three grounds.

At the hearing of the appeal, the learned lead counsel for the Appellant Mr. Njoku adopted the Appellant’s brief

filed on the 28th April, 2020 but deemed properly filed and served on the 30th April, 2020, as the arguments of the Appellant in furtherance of his appeal. While Mr. Nwaonumah, the learned Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Ebonyi State adopted the Respondent’s brief filed on the 28th May, 2020 as the arguments of the Respondent in contesting the appeal.

The Appellant distilled two issues for determination from the three grounds of appeal thus:
1. Whether the lower Court was right in relying on the highly discredited and inadmissible hearsay evidence presented by the Respondent to convict the Appellant of the offence of murder. (Grounds 1 and 3).
2. Whether the lower Court was right to have overlooked the inherent and manifest contradictions in the evidence of the Respondent to hold that the Respondent “conclusively and overwhelmingly proved” the charge of murder against the Appellant. (Ground 2).

The Respondent equally distilled two issues for determination but without relating them to the grounds of appeal as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution successfully proved the offence of murder against the Appellant

beyond reasonable doubt through his confessional statement.
2. Whether the defence of self defence relied upon by the Appellant availed him given the circumstances of this appeal.

As earlier noted, the issues formulated by the Respondent were not tied to the grounds of appeal and I shall therefore adopt the issues of the Appellant in deciding this appeal while juxtaposing them with the arguments of the Respondent.

The first issue therefore is:
Whether the lower Court was right in relying on the highly discredited and inadmissible hearsay evidence presented by the Respondent to convict the Appellant of the offence of murder.

Arguing this issue, Mr. Njoku submitted that none of the two prosecution witnesses at trial, personally witnessed the alleged murder and that their entire testimonies on what transpired was hearsay and admissible to convict the Appellant. He referred toIJIOFFOR VS THE STATE (2001) LPELR-1465(SC).

The learned counsel further submitted that the testimony of PW2 was suspicious and did not accord with a normal course of action. He outlined various portions of the testimony of this witness and submitted that the

account was incredible and ought not to have been believed by the trial Court.

Learned counsel argued that the person who volunteered information upon which PW1 based his findings ought to have been called as a vital witness and that the failure of the prosecution to call him raises a presumption that they were withholding evidence. He referred to OGUDO VS STATE (2011) 18 NWLR (PT 1278) 1 at 31. He argued that the supposed murder weapon ought to have been tendered and that the failure to do so ought to have attracted a specific finding by the learned trial Judge. He referred to ADAMU VS STATE (2019) LPELR-46902(SC).

Mr. Njoku further submitted that Exhibit B, the confessional statement attributed to the Appellant but which he denied, had no connection with him and that it was not attested to by a superior police officer thereby further denting its credibility. He referred to OGUDO VS STATE (2011) 12 SC (PT 1) 71. He contended that Exhibit A was admitted in error and ought to have been expunged from the records as the recorder thereof was never called, neither was the interpreter thereof thereby depriving it of all credibility. He referred to FRN VS USMAN (2012) ALL FWLR (PT 362) 1639 at 1655-1656.

Learned counsel submitted that Exhibits A and B did not show that the Appellant was cautioned in the language he understood and that both statements were inadmissible and ought to have been expunged from the records. He referred to POPOOLA VS STATE (2018) 10 NWLR (PT 1628) 485 at 508, MOHAMMED VS THE STATE (2010) LPELR-9019(CA) and EZEUGO VS STATE (2013) LPELR-19984(CA).

Mr. Njoku submitted that if at all the Appellant did commit the alleged offence of murder, then he did so in self-defence. In this regard referred to the adduced evidence inclusive of the testimony of the Appellant which learned counsel noted was consistent with the contents of exhibits A and B. He submitted that the evidence pointing to self-defence ought to have been considered by the learned trial Judge. He referred to ADELEYE VS STATE (2014) LPELR-23063(CA) and EMORDI VS STATE (2000) 8 NWLR (PT 670) 604 at 614.

The learned counsel contended that there was no evidential basis for the finding of the learned trial Judge that the Appellant and the deceased were last seen together and that they passed the night together in the

same apartment before the deceased was found dead in a pool of her own blood the following morning while the same Court shut its eyes to obvious facts. He referred to ADEBIYI VS THE STATE (2016) 8 NWLR (PT 1515) 459.

Contrariwise, Mr. Nwaonumah outlined the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and submitted that the prosecution relied on the extra judicial confessional statements of the Appellant which were admitted without objection after subjecting them to proper evaluation. He referred to AROGUNDADE VS STATE (2009) 6 NWLR (PT 1136) 165.

He submitted further that despite the Appellant resiling from the said confessions, they were rightly admitted and deserving of evidential value once subjected to the tests of validity. He referred to OJEGELE VS STATE (1988) 1 NWLR (PT 71) 414 and GALADIMA VS STATE (2013) 2 NWLR (PT 1333) 610.

The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of PW1 as an investigating police officer could not constitute hearsay evidence, that the attack on the testimony of PW2 was merely sentimental and that failure to tender the murder weapon was not fatal to the prosecution’s case. He referred to

OLADEJO VS THE STATE (1994) 6 NWLR (PT 348) 101 and ELUJI KINGSLEY EZE VS THE STATE (2013) SC 326; ELC (2018) 3037 SC 1.

Mr. Nwaonumah argued that in adopting the defence of self-defence, the Appellant had abandoned the posture that he did not kill the deceased but that in applying the extant guiding principles, self-defence would not avail the Appellant. He referred to R VS ONYEMAIZU (1985) NRLR 93, UDOFIA VS STATE (1984) NSCC 836 at 856-857 and ADEYEYE VS STATE (2013) NWLR (PT 1364) 47 at 66.

He further argued that where cause of death is obvious, medical evidence is superfluous and referred to BEN VS STATE (2006) 16 NWLR (PT 1006) 582 at 594. He submitted that the prosecution did not withhold evidence as it had a duty to call quality evidence that would establish a charge and not a particular witness or given number of witnesses. He referred toEFFIONG VS STATE (1998) 8 NWLR (PT 562) 362 and AKINDIPE VS STATE (2012) 16 NWLR (PT 1325) 94 at 116.

The learned Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions further submitted that the testimony of the Appellant at trial was at variance with his confessional statements thereby rendering his testimony unreliable.

He referred toUSUFU VS STATE (2007) 1 NWLR (PT 1020) 94 at 102.

He submitted that the circumstances of the commission of the offence are direct and unequivocal and supports the inference that the Appellant committed the offence.

As earlier stated at the beginning of this judgment, the Appellant was convicted of matricide, the murder of his mother, a sacrilegious offence, if ever there was one fit to be so described. This appeal is a challenge to that conviction.

It goes without saying that despite the gravity of the said offence, the Appellant enjoys a presumption of innocence pursuant to Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). To succeed therefore, onus rests on the prosecution to establish the criminal allegation beyond reasonable doubt. This degree of proof is not light but at the same time it does not imply proof beyond any shadow of doubt. This degree of proof is achieved once all the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are established beyond reasonable doubt otherwise the accused person will be acquitted. See AKALEZI VS. THE STATE (1993) 2 NWLR (PT. 273) 1 at 13, NASIRU VS. STATE

(1999) LPELR-1945(SC) and BRIGHT VS. STATE (2012) 8 NWLR (PT. 1302) 279.

The first contention here was that the evidence relied on by the trial Court in convicting the Appellant was hearsay as neither of the two witnesses of the prosecution directly witnessed the alleged murder. This does not appear to hold much water. But then what is hearsay evidence?
Pursuant to Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 2011 “37 hearsay is a statement (a) Oral or written made

otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding, or (b) contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatever proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of providing the truth of the matter stated in it.” Evidence must be direct as a witness would be disallowed from asserting the veracity of what he did not see, hear, perceive or have knowledge of directly. It is hearsay to assert the truth of what a witness was told by some other person who had direct knowledge of the facts and hearsay evidence is inadmissible pursuant to Section 38 of the said Evidence Act (supra) unless covered by the exceptions in the said Evidence Act. See A.G. RIVERS STATE V A.G. AKWA-IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1248) 31, EDOSA & ANOR VS.OGIEMWANRE (2018) LPELR-46341(SC), ASAKE VS NIG. ARMY COUNCIL & ANOR (2006) LPELR-5427(CA) andOJO V. GHARORO & ORS(2006) LPELR-2383(SC).
While it is correct that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, PW1 was the police investigator whose role in the investigation was not challenged. Naturally, investigation of a crime already committed, takes place after the

commission thereof. The investigator then appears at trial to give evidence of what he personally gathered in the course of his investigation. He is available to be cross-examined on his evidence which is direct and consists of what he personally did. The evidence of an investigator cannot therefore be considered hearsay in any manner as it is the direct testimony of what he personally gathered in the course of his investigative activities and the veracity of which would be tested in the crucible of cross-examination. SeeIKOTUN VS. FRN & ANOR (2017) LPELR-43396(CA), OBOT VS. STATE(2014) LPELR-23130(CA), ISAH VS. STATE(2019) LPELR-49363(CA), AROGUNDADE VS. THE STATE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 469) (SC) 423 and ANYASODOR VS. STATE(2018) LPELR-43720(SC).

PW2 equally gave direct testimony of what he saw and personally witnessed. He testified of how his attention was drawn to the scene as the leader of the community, of how he ordered the door of the apartment to be forced open and how he met the Appellant with the corpse of the deceased. He further testified of his exchange of words with the Appellant and how he subsequently reported to the Police. His evidence

was direct and could not in any manner be classified as hearsay.

The Appellant also challenged the two extra judicial statements attributed to him. At trial he gave evidence totally at variance with these extra judicial confessions. At the time these statements were tendered, the defence failed to object upon which they were correctly admitted. The appropriate time to object to the admission of a confessional statement is at the point of tendering. SeeIFARAMOYE VS. STATE (2017) LPELR-42031(SC) and OGUDO VS STATE (2011) LPELR-860 (SC). That the Appellant later gave evidence which was at variance with these two confessional statements was not a basis for not giving them evidential value. The proper step as was carried out by the learned trial Judge was to subject them to tests of validity to ascertain as follows:
(i) whether there is any evidence outside the confession to show that it is true;
(ii) whether it is corroborated no matter how slightly;
(iii) Whether the facts contained therein so far as can be tested are true;
(iv) Whether the accused had an opportunity to commit an offence;
(v) whether the

confession of the accused person was possible and
(vi) Whether the confession was consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved. SeeUBIERHO VS. STATE (2005) 2 SC (PT 1) 18 at 21-22, NSOFOR & ANOR VS STATE (2005) ALL FWLR (PT.242) 397 at 411-412 and STATE VS. ISAH & ORS (2012) LPELR-15519(SC).
Furthermore, Exhibit A was tendered as a statement recorded by the Appellant himself. This was not objected to neither was the issue of Appellant’s inability to write made an issue in cross-examination therefore indicating the acceptance that he wrote the said statement. See OFORLETE VS THE STATE (2000) LPELR-2270(SC). Exhibit B on its part was tendered by PW1 who stated that he wrote it for the Appellant and interpreted it to him. I see no justifiable basis to expunge these statements from the records.

The learned counsel for the Appellant had challenged the finding of the trial Court that Appellant slept alone in the apartment with the deceased on the ground that it was not based on the adduced evidence. This assertion by counsel is totally unfounded. Under cross-examination, the following exchange was recorded for

the Appellant on page 49 of the record of appeal:
Q- It is true that you and your mother were the only people in the house when she was found dead?
A- It is true.
Q- When you discovered that your mother was dead, did you raise alarm?
A-I raised alarm but nobody came. …..
Q- It is also true that prior to that night that your mother died, she was healthy.
A- It is true. ……
Q- I also put it to you that when you saw that she was dead, you covered her with some clothes?
A- Yes, I covered with a carpet because I saw her naked.

Having realized that he was on a sticky wicket, the Appellant’s counsel shifted grounds that the Appellant was availed by self defence. In choosing this line of defence, the Appellant conceded that he did kill the deceased, his mother but that he did it to save himself. The position of the law on self defence was abundantly articulated by KEKERE-EKUN, JSC thus:
The law is settled that the defence of self-defence, if successful is a complete answer to a charge of murder or manslaughter. See Omoregie v. State (supra); Apugo v. State (2006) All FWLR

(Pt. 341) 1253, (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1002) 227 at pages 255-256, paragraphs H-A; Baridam v. State (1994) 1 SCNJ 1, (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 320) 250 at 262.
Section 286 of the Criminal Code provides:
When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault:
Provided that the force used is not intended, and is not such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm.
If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds that he cannot otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous harm, it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous harm.
The defence of self-defence is thus only available to an accused person where he proves that at the time of the killing, he was in reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm and that it was necessary at the time to use the

force which resulted in the death of the deceased in order to preserve himself from the danger. The force used by the accused person must be proportionate to the force used or immediately threatened against him and reasonable in the circumstances in which it was used. There must be reasonable grounds for the accused person to believe that the only way he could escape death or grievous bodily harm to himself was to kill the assailant. See Nwuzoke v. State (1988) 2 SCNJ 344, (1988) NWLR (Pt. 72) 529; Omoregie v. State (supra). The burden is on the prosecution to disprove the defence of self-defence. It is also trite that whether the defence will succeed depends on the facts of each case. See Omoregie v. State (supra). See JOHN VS STATE (2017) LPELR-48039(SC) at 43-45.
However, the disclosed evidence fails to justify this defence and I must accordingly resolve this issue against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
The remaining issue is:
Whether the lower Court was right to have overlooked the inherent and manifest contradictions in the evidence of the Respondent to hold that the Respondent “conclusively and overwhelmingly

proved” the charge of murder against the Appellant.

Arguing this issue, Mr. Njoku submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution at trial was riddled with contradictions. He outlined the various instances of these contradictions and submitted that they were material and ought to have been explained otherwise they should accrue to the benefit of the Appellant as the Court was not to pick and choose. He referred to PRINCEWILL VS STATE (1994) 6 NWLR (PT 353) 703, BASSEY VS THE STATE (2012) 12 NWLR (PT 1314) 209 at 239, NMA DOGO VS THE STATE (2001) 1 SC (PT II) 30 and IBEH VS STATE (1997) 1 NWLR (PT 484) 38.

Mr. Nwaonumah contested the existence of any contradiction in the case of the prosecution and submitted that it would only be such if it was material and touched on an important element of the alleged offence. He referred to DIBIE VS STATE (2007) 9 NWLR (PT 1038) 30 at 59.

Evidence is said to be contradictory where it asserts the opposite of another piece of evidence on a material point which touches on one of the essential ingredients of the offence being tried. Human recollections are hardly perfect and minor variations in

accounts accord with the normal course of events, especially after a reasonable lapse of time. The tendency is to overlook minor variations unless they touch on the fundamental aspects of the case. See OGOALA VS. STATE (1991) LPELR-2307(SC), ODUNLAMI VS. THE NIGERIAN NAVY (2013) LPELR-20701(SC), EGWUMI VS. STATE (2013) LPELR-20091(SC), GABRIEL VS STATE (1989) 5 NWLR (PT.122) 460 and NWANKWOALA VS. FRN (2018) LPELR-43891(SC).
The learned counsel of the Appellant outlined various instances of the supposed contradictions in the prosecution’s case at trial but a perusal thereof fails to indicate anyone touching any of the ingredients of the offence of murder. None of the outlined instances even if correct, casts any doubt on whether the deceased died or that her death was caused intentionally by the act of the Appellant.

The learned trial Judge made findings which were supported by the adduced evidence from which the following facts cannot be disputed; that the Appellant was the only person who slept overnight in the same apartment with the deceased with the door locked from inside; that on the door being forced open the following morning,

the lifeless body of the deceased was found covered up with the Appellant sitting next to it and that from Exhibits D, D1, D2 and D3 the body of the deceased was splattered with blood coming from a side of the head. Where two people were in a confined environment and one of them is found dead in circumstances not consistent with suicide, it is incumbent on the survivor to explain the circumstances leading to the death of the other person otherwise the inevitable conclusion would be that he was responsible for the death of the deceased. Where the circumstances of the commission of an offence, are positive, direct, unequivocal and irresistibly lead to the inference that it is the accused person that committed the crime, such inference ought to be or should be drawn. See AKPA VS. STATE (2008) LPELR-368(SC) and AKINMOJU VS. STATE (2000) LPELR-351(SC).

Also, where death is obvious and cause of death apparent, medical evidence of cause of death is unnecessary and at best superfluous. See BEN VS. STATE (2006) LPELR-770(SC), OFORLETE VS. THE STATE (supra), TONARA BAKURI VS. THE STATE (1965) NMLR 163 at 164, NWACHUKWU VS. THE STATE (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 782) 543,

LORI & ANOR VS STATE (1980) 11 SC 81 and TOBI VS. STATE (2019) LPELR-46537(SC).

I therefore resolve this remaining issue against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
In totality, I hold that this appeal lacks merit and I therefore dismiss it.
The judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the Appellant is hereby affirmed.

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading the Judgment of my learned brother JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA before now and he has characteristically dealt with the Issues raised in this Appeal with utmost clarity and resolved them in accordance with decided authorities of the Supreme Court and indeed this Court. I agree therefore with his reasoning and conclusion that the Appeal is unmeritorious and should fail. I too dismiss same.

The Judgment of the High Court of Ebonyi State, Ivo Judicial Division, delivered on the 18th day of November, 2019 by CHIMA J., is hereby affirmed. The conviction and sentence passed on the Appellant is hereby affirmed.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance, the

well-considered judgment of my learned brother, JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA just delivered. I am in agreement with the decision and the reasoning behind the decision.

The Appellant raised the defence of self defence, but was unable to adduce any credible evidence to sustain the defence. From the circumstances of this case, I am in no doubt that the defence was a mere afterthought having realized that he was condemned for conviction.

For the above reasons and of course the detailed ones adumbrated in the lead judgment, the appeal is unmeritorious. Same is hereby dismissed. The trial Court’s conviction and sentence of the Appellant is hereby affirmed.

Appearances:

Mr. U. Njoku, with him C. Ngene Esq. For Appellant(s)

Mr. J. E. Nwaonumah, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Ebonyi State For Respondent(s)