LINUS AMAECHI v. THE STATE
(2014) LCN/6840(CA)
RATIO
CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN PROVING THE OFFENCE OF MURDER
The law is quite clear on the fact that circumstantial evidence at the risk of repeating myself, must be cogent, unequivocal, compelling and overwhelmingly point to the guilt of the accused person. To support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it must also lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused and no-one else is the murderer. See the case of JOSEPH LORI AND ANOR. v. THE STATE (1980) 8-11 SC 81.
It is however trite that a criminal case can be proved beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. See OKOROGBO v. THE STATE (1992) 2 NWLR PT. 222 PG. 244 AT PG 254. It is however, my humble view that this particular circumstance has gone beyond mere suspicion. It is a direct case of the accused person causing the death of the deceased by applying a blunt object to her head which resulted in her death.
I accept the view of the learned trial Judge that the evidence of the accused is not credible. The circumstantial evidence here is that no one else but the accused person could be held responsible for the injury that caused the death of the deceased. See the case of GABRIEL v. THE STATE (1989) 5 NWLR PT. 122, 457. Per PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.
