FRIDAY JOHN UKO v. THE STATE
(2019)LCN/13808(CA)
In The Courtroom of Attraction of Nigeria
On Friday, the 18th day of October, 2019
CA/C/432C/2018
RATIO
WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF AN INVESTIGATING POLICE OFFICER WILL BE HEARSAY
The proof of an Investigating Police Officer wouldn’t be rumour solely on what he personally noticed or found in the middle of his investigation. See AJIBOYE V STATE (1994) eight NWLR (Pt. 364) 587 @ 593-600; OLADEJO V. THE STATE (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 348) 101 @ 113. Nonetheless, the proof of an Investigating Police Officer would nonetheless be rumour if as within the on the spot case he gave proof of the recorded statements of witnesses who weren’t known as to offer proof.PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE: DEFINITION
It is because rumour proof is proof which doesn’t derive its worth solely from the credit score given to the witness himself, however which rests additionally, partially, on the veracity and competence of another individual. Thus, the place a 3rd celebration relates a narrative to a different as proof of the contents of an announcement, such story is rumour. See JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE V. OMO (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 157) 407.
The traditional definition of Rumour Proof was given by the Privy Council within the case of SUBRAMANIAM V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (1956) 1 WLR 969 that:
Proof of an announcement made to a witness by an individual who isn’t himself known as as a witness might or is probably not rumour. It’s rumour and inadmissible when the thing of the proof is to determine the reality of what’s contained within the assertion. It isn’t rumour and admissible when it’s proposed to determine by proof not the reality of the assertion however the truth that it was mentioned.PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.
MURDER: ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENSE OF MURDER
The legislation is that, in an effort to safe a conviction in a cost of homicide, the prosecution should show
(a) That the deceased had died;
(b) That the demise of the deceased was attributable to the accused; and
(c) That the act or omission of the accused was intentional with data that demise or grievous bodily hurt was its possible consequence.
All of the elements should be proved or co-exist earlier than a conviction for homicide could possibly be secured. See UBANI V. STATE (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 224 (SC); UGURU V. STATE (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 771) 90 (SC); IGABELE V. STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 100 (SC); ADAVA V. STATE (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 155 (SC).PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.
A STATEMENT AMOUNTING TO IMPLICATION IN A CRIME IS NOT SUFFICIENT, IT MUST BE UNEQUIVOCAL
This level takes us again to the place of the legislation as acknowledged by Karibi-Whyte JSC within the case of SOLOMON THOMAS AKPAN V. STATE (1992) 7 SCNJ 22 that the assertion merely amounting to implication in against the law isn’t ample, it should be unequivocal. See additionally OZAKI V. THE STATE (1996) Three SCNJ 12; AFOLABI V. COP (1961) ALL NLR 654; PATRICK NJOVENS V. THE STATE (1973) 5 SC 71; NIGERIAN NAVY & ORS V. LT. COMMANDER S. A. IBE LAMBERT (2007) 9 SCNJ 1.PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.
MANSLAUGHTER: DEFINTION
Nonetheless, an individual who unlawfully kills one other in such circumstances as to not represent homicide as within the on the spot case is responsible of manslaughter. The truth that a killing goes unexplained won’t justify an acquittal. The place there isn’t a proof as to the circumstances wherein the sufferer was killed, the accused must be convicted of manslaughter. See JOHN IWUAYA OKOJI V. THE STATE (1987) 1 NSCC 291; AREMU V. THE STATE (1984) ANLR 314 (SC).PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Courtroom of Attraction of Nigeria
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA Justice of The Courtroom of Attraction of Nigeria
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR Justice of The Courtroom of Attraction of Nigeria
Between
FRIDAY JOHN UKO – Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE – Respondent(s)
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.(Delivering the Main Judgment): That is an attraction from the judgment of the Excessive Courtroom of Akwa Ibom State, Ikot Ekpene Judicial Division presided over by Hon. Justice NFN Ntong in cost No. HT/2C/2015 delivered on 16th August 2018.
The Appellant was arraigned on one (1) depend cost of homicide opposite to Part 326(1) of the Felony Code, Cap. 38 Vol. 2 Legal guidelines of Akwa Ibom Sate of Nigeria, 2000. He pleaded Not Responsible.
On 14th August 2014, the Appellant pushed his three months pregnant spouse ? Late Ndifreke Friday John who allegedly used herself to barricade the door and he or she fell down and died shortly afterwards.
The prosecution known as 4 witnesses (PW1-PW4) and tendered the additional judicial assertion of the Appellant whereby he admitted that the deceased (his spouse) fell down and died after he pushed her.
?The realized trial Choose handled the Appellant?s extra-judicial assertion as confessional and convicted him of the offence of homicide as charged.
?Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed a Discover of Attraction containing three (3) grounds of Attraction on this courtroom on
1
25/09/2018. The related briefs of Argument are:
1. Appellants transient of Argument dated 20/11/2018 and filed on 26/11/2018. It’s settled by G. A. Umoh Esq.
2. Respondents transient of Argument dated 19/03/2019 and filed on 21/03/2019 however deemed filed on 02/10/2019. It’s settled by A. A. Nyongessien, Principal State Counsel, Akwa Ibom State.
Discovered Counsel for the Appellant nominated two (2) points for willpower. They’re:
1. Whether or not the prosecution proved the elements of the offence of homicide in opposition to the Appellant past each cheap doubt as to maintain the conviction and sentence to demise hanging (sic) demise by hanging.
2. Whether or not the realized trial decide was proper in convicting the Appellant of the offence of homicide by relying solely on the Appellant confessional assertion.
Discovered Counsel for the Respondent however modified the Appellant?s points for willpower by formulating two (2) barely completely different points as follows:
1. Whether or not the prosecution proved the elements of the offence of homicide in opposition to the Accused Appellant past cheap doubt as required by legislation.
2
2. Whether or not the trial Courtroom was proper in counting on the confessional assertion of the Accused/Appellant.
This attraction shall be selected the problems nominated by the Appellant.
On Problem one, Appellants Counsel submitted that the prosecution didn’t show its case past cheap doubt in view of the character of proof (documentary and oral) adduced on the trial for the offence of homicide which carries demise sentence at conviction. Appellant?s Counsel reiterated the elements of the offence of homicide by means of the instances of SULE V. STATE (2009) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33; NKEBISI V. STATE (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 471. He conceded that the prosecution can show its case by means of the confessional assertion of the accused; circumstantial proof and proof of eye witness.
On this level, he referred to the instances ofMAIGARI V. STATE (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 425; IGABELE V. STATE (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt. 896) 314 and added that the burden of proving the guilt of the Accused individual past cheap doubt is at all times on the prosecution and doesn’t shift. Appellant?s Counsel submitted that there isn’t a dispute on the primary ingredient of the offence of
3
homicide, which is the actual fact of demise. On the second ingredient, the reason for demise, he submitted that the legislation is that the prosecution should set up the reason for demise unequivocally and there should be cogent proof linking the reason for demise to the act of the Appellant. On this, he referred to the instances of UDOSEN V. STATE (2007) Four NWLR (Pt. 1023) 125; OCHE V. STATE (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1021) 214; EKPOISONG V. STATE (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1122) 354; OFORLETE V. STATE (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 631) 415.
On this rating, Appellants Counsel reviewed the proof of the prosecution witnesses. He famous that none of PW1, PW2 and PW3 witnessed the incident. That the PW4 (IPO) went on to tender the additional judicial assertion of the Appellant admitted as Exhibit B whereby the Appellant admitted that he pushed his pregnant spouse who used herself to barricade the door and he or she fell and died immediately.
He submitted that going by the tenor of proof, there’s a severe controversy whether or not the Appellant beat, kicked or pushed the deceased which resulted to demise of the deceased. He referred to the instances of PIUS ODOCK & ORS V. STATE (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1033) 369;
4
GAMBO MUSA V. THE STATE (2009) LPELR-SC 323/2006 0R (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467 and submitted that from the totality of the prosecution proof, the prosecution didn’t hyperlink what act of the Appellant brought on the demise of the deceased.
Appellants Counsel submitted that assuming with out conceding that the reason for demise was ascertained, and linked to the act of the Appellant, the prosecution is responsibility sure in legislation to determine with cogent proof to point out that the Appellant knew or had purpose to know that demise can be a possible and never solely a possible consequence of the act or of any bodily harm which the act was meant to trigger.
On this, Counsel referred to the instances of OKONJI V. THE STATE (1987) NSCC 291 and FESTUS AMAYO V. THE STATE (2001) LPELR-459 (SC) and added that it’s trite that particular intention should be proved and if it isn’t established past cheap doubt, the Courtroom shall be unable to search out the Accused responsible of homicide.
?He submitted that the one truth from the Report of Attraction is that the Appellant pushed the deceased; demise from a push is certainly unbelievable. He submitted that the query whether or not the Appellant knew
5
or had purpose to know that the deceased would most likely and unlikely die or that she would maintain grievous harm was not ascertained by the prosecution and similar remains to be shrouded unsure which ought to be resolved in favour of the Appellant. He referred to the instances of AMINU V. THE STATE CA/C/373/C/2013 per ABIRU, JCA at P. 28 andIGABELE V. STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 100 and submitted that the prosecution had didn’t show the important ingredient of particular intention of the offence of homicide and that the trial Courtroom ought to not have convicted Appellant for homicide.
On problem one, Discovered Counsel for the Respondent additionally reiterated the elements of the offence or homicide by means of the instances ofJEREMIAH V. STATE (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1320) 248; JIMMY V. STATE (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 714) 103 @ 106; OLATUNBOSUN V. STATE (2001) ALL FWLR (Pt. 555) 305 @ 308-309; AFOSI V. STATE (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1371) 329 @ 332. Respondent?s counsel additionally acknowledged that in its journey to determine the guilt of an accused individual, the prosecution can depend on any of the next strategies in proof of its case:
(a) Confessional Assertion of the Accused individual
6
(b) Circumstantial;
(c) Eye witness proof
He referred on the above to the instances of EMEKA V. STATE (2001) FWLR (Pt. 66) 682; OLOWOYE V. STATE (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 346.
After stating that the actual fact of demise isn’t in dispute, Respondent?s Counsel submitted that the prosecution established the reason for demise by means of Exhibit B, the Appellant?s additional judicial assertion the place he (Appellant) acknowledged that I pushed my pregnant spouse, Ndifreke Friday John who had used herself to barricade the door and he or she fell down and died immediately.
Respondents Counsel submitted that the proof of PW4 (IPO) which was not challenged below cross-examination corroborated Exhibit B, the extra-judicial assertion of the Appellant. He reiterated the place of the legislation that in a cost of homicide, the demise of the sufferer should be attributable to the act of the accused. He referred on this to the instances of GABRIEL V. THE STATE (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 457 @ 459; OGUNTOLU V. THE STATE (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 432) 503; AIGUOBARISEGHIAN V. THE STATE (2004) 17 NSCQR 442 @ 449; OMONUJU V. THE STATE (1976) 5 SC 1; ADEKUNLE V. THE STATE (1989) 12 SC 203.
7
He submitted that regardless that medical proof was not produced on this case, the circumstantial proof is positively and irresistibly per no different rational conclusion than that the demise of the deceased was attributable to the act of the accused. He referred to the instances of AHMED V. THE STATE (2002) 1 MJSC 50 @ 75-76; UBANI V. THE STATE (2003) 16 NSCQR 265 @ 269; BAKURI V. STATE (1965) NMLR 163; ONITILO V. STATE (2017) VOL. 272, LRCN 76 @ 83.
On the competition of the Appellant that there was no eye witness of the account, he submitted that the Appellant?s extra-judicial assertion Exhibit B has admitted all of the important parts of the offence and reveals unequivocal, direct and constructive involvement of the accused within the crime alleged. He referred to th
