SEGUN STEPHEN OLORUNSOLA v. THE STATE
(2018)LCN/12164(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 22nd day of November, 2018
CA/AK/58C/2014
RATIO
EVIDENCE: CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is further submitted that the retraction of confessional statement by an accused person in his oral testimony in Court during trial is of no moment. Cited CHIOKWE V. THE STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 671) 1441 @ 1461 para B.” PER RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: ORAL TESTIMONY
“During his testimony at the trial Court, the Appellant made a U-turn to say that he was forced to sign Exhibit ‘C’. This the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the retraction was an afterthought to mislead the Court and relied in the Supreme Court decision in the case of USUNG V. THE STATE (SUPRA). I subscribed to this contention that the retraction was an afterthought. See NWANGBOMU V. THE STATE (SUPRA). The retraction of the Appellant in his oral testimony in Court during trial is of no moment. I so hold. See CHIOKWE V. THE STATE (SUPRA). See also the case of OPARA V. A. G. FED (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1569) 61 @ 71, Ratio 11.” PER RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
SEGUN STEPHEN OLORUNSOLA Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Ondo State Akure Judicial Division sitting at Akure presided over by Hon. Justice D. I. Kolawole, delivered on the 18th day of December, 2013. See pages 46-62 of the Record of Appeal.
On the 28th January, 2013, the Appellant was arraigned on a lone count charge of murder, contrary to Section 316 and punishable under Section 319 of the Criminal Code Cap, 30, Vol. II, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 1978 now Cap 37 Vol. 1, Laws of Ondo State, 2006.
The prosecution/Respondent called five witnesses while the Appellant gave evidence in his defence. See pages 10-23 of the Record of Appeal.
Exhibits A, B, C, C1, D and E, were admitted on behalf of the Respondent. None was admitted on behalf of the Appellant. Exhibits ‘A’ was the Autopsy Report, ‘B’ investigating Report at Oka Akoko Police State ‘C’ Accused Confessional Statement which he made at the state CID, Akure and same was tendered and admitted without any objection, ‘C1’ is the Confessional Statement Attestation Form, ‘D’ pictures of the two Accidental vehicles and ?E? Investigation at the State CID, Akure.
The case for the Respondent was that on or about 26th February, 2010 the Appellant at Oke Okia-Oka, in Oka Judicial Division unlawfully killed one Sunday Jonathan Adefarati.
The case for the Appellant was a flat denial of this murder during his oral evidence before the trial Court. However, admitted in his extra-judicial statement to the police (Exhibit C) which was tendered and admitted without any objection that he committed the offence of murder on the 26th February, 2010. See pages 7-8 of the Record of Appeal. The evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 pointed irresistibly to the fact that it was the Appellant that killed the deceased on the night of 26th February, 2010 at Oke Okia-Oka, Oka Akoko.
At the close of evidence from both sides and addresses the trial Court on the 18th of December, 2013, found the Appellant guilty of murder as charged. See pages 46-62 of the Record of Appeal.
The Appellant being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence filed his Notice of Appeal on the 27th day of February, 2014 and his Amended Notice of Appeal on 10th November, 2014. The Appellant also filed a Motion on Notice dated 3rd day of November, 2015 asking among others things;
AN ORDER extending time within which the Appellant may file his brief of Argument in this Appeal and
AN ORDER deeming the Appellant’s Brief of Argument already filed and served as having been properly filed and served.
In compliance with the Rules of Court, 2016 the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument which their learned counsel adopted on their behalves as the arguments in this appeal.
The Appellant’s Brief of Argument settled by E. I. Oboh Esq. filed on 19/11/2015, deemed filed and served on 6/6/2016 was identified and adopted by him on 24/10/2018. It contained the following issue for determination of the appeal:
“Based on the totality of the evidence placed before the learned trial judge of the lower Court, even including the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant-Exhibit C on which the judge practically solely relied, whether the judge was right in his decision convicting the Appellant for the offence of of murder which the Appellant was charged in the trial judge’s Court”
The Respondent’s Brief of Argument settled by A. O. Adeyemi Tuki DPP. MOJ. Ondo State filed on 28/11/2016, deemed filed and served on 22/3/2017 was identified and adopted by G. A. Olowoporoku DPP. MOJ. Ondo State as the current DPP. in the Ministry. It contained two (2) issues for determination, thus:
a) Whether from the facts and evidence before the Honourable trial Court, the Respondent could be said to have proved the charge of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction.
b) Whether from the evaluation of Exhibit ‘C’, (the confessional statement of the Appellant) by the learned trial Court, it could be said that same was not properly evaluated before the trial Court made finding of facts on it before relying on same.
The sole issue of the Appellant as couched encompasses the two issues of the Respondent and would be used in consideration of this appeal.
ARGUMENTS
The learned counsel for the Appellant contends that for the prosecution to succeeds in a prosecution for murder must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following ingredients of the offence.
i. That the alleged deceased person actually died.
ii. That the death of the deceased was caused by the act/omission of the accused person, and
iii. That the act/omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was an intentional act or omission with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm would be the probable consequence of the intentional act/omission.
Referred to the cases of SULE V. STATE (2009) 19 NWLR (PT. 1169) 33; NKE BISI V. STATE (2010) 22 WRN 176; AKINFE V. STATE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1106) and AJAKAIYE V. STATE (2015) 5 WRN 64 @ 88. Also referred to Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the cases of AJAYI V. STATE (2011) 22 WRN 51 @ 71; OWE V. QUEEN (1961) 2 SCNLR 354; HASSAN V. THE STATE (2001) 6 NWLR (PT. 70) 9 @286 and NWOSU V. STATE (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 562) 433 @ 444.
Counsel said that in proving the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution as per authorities, usually relies on three modes of proof. These are:
1. By direct evidence of person that saw the accused committing the offence.
2. By circumstantial evidence.
3. Confession of the accused.
The prosecution can rely on any one of the modes of proof or on all. Relied on AJAKAIYE V. STATE (SUPRA) 88 @ 89 and SUNDAY V. STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 682) 1821.
Counsel is of the opinion that the two ingredients of the offence i.e. cause of death of the decease and consequence of the act/omission of the Appellant were not proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. That from the totality of evidence before the trial Court, nobody saw the Appellant committing the offence and the only mode of evidence which the learned trial judge relied upon were circumstantial evidence and the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant – Exhibit ‘C’.
Learned counsel referred to pages 54-57 of the record of appeal and stated that while the trial judge relied on circumstantial evidence and on Exhibit ‘C’ for his decision that it was Appellant that caused the death of the deceased, that he solely relied on Exhibit C for his decision that the act/omission of the Appellant that caused the death of the deceased was an intentional one with knowledge that death or bodily harm would be the result of the act or omission of the Appellant.
It is contended that the law is trite that to support conviction, circumstantial evidence must be cogent and unequivocal to such an extent that it must be sufficiently compelling as to lead to the only conclusion that it was the accused and no one else that committed the offence. Referred to the cases ofPAULINUS UDEDIBIA & ORS V. THE STATE (1976) 11 SC. 133 @ 138-139; NASIRU V. THE STATE (1999) 2 NWLR (PT. 589) 87 and AJAKAIYE V. STATE (SUPRA).
It was submitted that based on the so called circumstances linking the Appellant with the death of the accused, the circumstances were not sufficiently compelling as to lead to the only conclusion that the Appellant and no one else killed the deceased. We are urged to so hold.
On Exhibit ‘C’, counsel contended that the recorder of the exhibit one Dapo Olarewaju was not the person called to tender it but one Inspector Moses Adeosun (PW5). He referred to the case of TOPE V. STATE (2015) 16 WRN 42 CA where the police officer that recorded a confessional statement of an accused person was not the one who tendered it, reliance should not be placed on it.
Counsel urged us to hold that as the prosecution failed to highlight the efforts made to secure the attendance of Dapo Olarewaju to tender Exhibit C, the lower Court ought not to have relied and acted on it in the course of its judgment.
It was submitted that the singular fact that the defence did not object to the tendering of Exhibit ‘C’ in evidence in Court, ought not to have been simplistic ground on which the trial judge could have freely relied on it. Relied on the cases of IDOWU V. STATE (2000) 7 SC 1150 and ONOCHIE V. ODOGWU (2006) 2 SCNJ (PT. 96) 114, (2006) 6 NWLR (PT. 975) 65. Also cited IGBEN V. STATE (2015) 8 WRN 94 @ 119 on the Court’s duty to expunge inadmissible evidence when found to be made involuntarily.
On endorsement of Superior Police Officer on a confessional statement, learned counsel stated that the attitude of the Court has always been that any time the question crops up, it has to be properly handled. Referred to TOPE V. STATE (SUPRA). He said that consequential to all the foregoing, this Court is urge to hold that the lower Court erred in law when it failed to dicountenance Exhibit ‘C’ on the ground that the person that recorded it was not its tenderer and that the Appellant was forced to counter sign the endorsement.
It is contended that there is sharp contradiction between Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘E’ which is the Report of the Police at C.I.D. Akure tendered by the PW5. That the said Exhibit ‘E’ is what the Appellant was reported to have timeously informed the PW5’s team at Akure that he was not the only culprit for the offence and that some other two persons were involved in the act. That there is no statement in Exhibit ‘C’ to serve as corroboration that Appellant conspired with two other persons who are at large to murder the deceased.
It is further contended that an earlier Exhibit B, another Police Report submitted by the Oka Division of PW4 to the C.I.D. Headquarters, Akure of PW5 when the case was transferred from Oka to Akure; contradicted Exhibit ‘C’.
Counsel opined that it is not admissible to assert that the mere fact that an accused person retracts what he says in one statement in another, ought to render the statement and or the evidence of the accused unreliable. That inconsistency rules has no application to extra judicial statements of an accused person. Relied on the case of OFURADORHO V. STATE (2015) 5 WRN 118 @ 147.
Learned counsel contended that Exhibits ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘E’ severely contradicted each other when they each asserted or depicted the exact opposite of one another. Referred to the case of AJONYE V. NWACHUKWU (2011) 16 WRN 38.
He submitted that the position of the law is that an appellate Court would set aside a conviction made by a lower Court which was based on unresolved contradictions or material facts in the prosecution’s evidence as it is in this case. Cited ARCHIBONG V. STATE (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 323) 1747, (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 1000) 349.
According to the learned counsel the trial judge did not at all consider the evidence of the defence and the evidence of the prosecution which he considered in the course of the veracity exercise, did not at all relate to the material contradiction among exhibits ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘E’.
He opined that the merit of Exhibit ‘C’ itself ought to have been resolved by reference and reduced to a simple question of law to the effect that in the fight between the Appellant and the deceased, in which the deceased died, it would be illegal to conclude that Appellant must have unlawfully killed the deceased.
He further opined that the trial judge erred in law when he based his decision convicting the Appellant for murder by beating the deceased to death with stick in a fight in a case where there was no such statement or particulars in the information filed in the lower Court.
In conclusion, learned counsel for the Appellant urged us to allow the appeal.
In response, learned counsel to the Respondent stated the ingredients of the offence of murder as provided in Section 316 of the Criminal Code Cap. 37. Laws of Ondo State, 2006. He referred to the cases of KADA V. THE STATE (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 208) 134 @ 144 PARAS. E-H and ABOGEDE V. THE STATE (1996) 5 NWLR (PT. 448) 270 @ 277. He equally referred to the mode of proof as enumerated above and also cited the case of SUNDAY V, STATE (SUPRA) in support thereof.
Counsel referred to the testimonies of PW1-PW5 on record and submitted that the prosecution proved the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt as contained at pages 10-20 of the Record of Appeal. He referred to Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ and said that same where tendered and admitted without objection before the trial Court which confirmed that the deceased Sunday Adefarati was dead. That prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the Appellant. He referred to both oral and documentary evidence at the trial and cited the cases of ADEBAYO V. THE STATE (2008) 6 ACLR 372 @ 390 PARAS. 16-23; NWAEZE V. THE STATE (1996) 2 NWLR (PT. 428) 1, (1996) 2 SCNJ 42; LORI V. THE STATE (1980) 8-11 SC. 81 and EGHOGBONOME V. THE STATE (2001) 2 ACLR 262 @ 266 ratio 7 to the effect of circumstantial evidence.
It was submitted by counsel that the fact that the deceased was found dead with his penis cut off clearly established that he was murdered and the fact that the penis was recovered from the Appellant also clearly established that the Appellant murdered the deceased so that he can use the manhood for any purpose which he had in mind. It was submitted further that the second ingredient of the offence of murder was proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt vide his confessional statement marked Exhibit ‘C’.
Counsel stated that the trial Court after evaluation of the facts and totality of evidence before it on the second ingredient held thus:
“In view of all these, I have no doubt in my mind that the confessional statement, Exhibit C had passed the stringent tests as laid down in Gabriel v. The State (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) page 280 @ 326 A-D, and the Court can rely on it. The implication of this conclusion is that the prosecution has proved that the defendant on the night of the 26th February, 2010 killed Sunday Adafarati by beating him with stick while they were fighting and the defendant later cut off his penis with cutlass.”
It is contained at page 57 lines 9-14 of the Record of Appeal.
Learned counsel also submitted that the third ingredient of the offence was proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He referred to the testimony of PW5 on oath that the Appellant at the scene of crime showed his team where he fought with the deceased and where he dragged the dead body of the deceased to. He furthered that the Appellant intended to cause the death of the deceased and his act resulted to the death. Referred to the case of AMUSA V. THE STATE (2005) 1 NSC. 87.
That Exhibit C which is the Appellant’s confessional statement tendered without objection revealed that the Appellant intended to kill the deceased. He referred to pages 7-8 of the Record of Appeal containing the said exhibit. Also referred to other pieces of evidence on record by the Respondent’s witnesses and contended that the Appellant had the intention to cause the death of the deceased by causing the bodily injuries to him which led to his death.
Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court after thorough and careful evaluation of the evidence before it made finding of facts when it held thus:
“I therefore held that the prosecution has proved that the defendant intended to kill Sunday Adefarati when he beat him with stick and then cut off his penis with cutlass”
This is at page 57 lines 29-31 of the Record of Appeal.
It is submitted on Respondent’s issue two in relation to Exhibit C, that same was tendered and admitted without objection.
That the Appellant, however, made a u-turn during his oral testimony before the trial Court that he was forced to sign the document. Counsel said that a curious assessment of the signatures on the document would reveal to the contrary and that the later retraction was an afterthought to mislead the Court. Referred to the Supreme Court decision in USUNG V. THE STATE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 462) 1203 that the appropriate stage to raise an objection to a confessional statement is when it is about to be tendered in evidence; especially where the accused person is represented by counsel and it is assumed that he ought to know what to do at each stage of the proceedings. Any belated denial of the voluntariness of a confessional statement or its retraction is mere afterthought.
Counsel submitted that a confessional statement of an accused does not need any further corroboration, particularly where it was tendered without objection. The court would only need further corroboration where there is any doubt about the voluntariness or the opportunity of making such statement. That a valid voluntary statement tendered without objection and admitted in evidence, is good evidence and no amount of subsequent argument against or retraction will vitiate its admissibility and potency as a voluntary statement. Referred to USUNG V. THE STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 650) 1226 @ 1252 PARAS. A-D.
That Exhibit ‘C1’ further confirmed the voluntariness of Exhibit ‘C’. The Appellant objected to the admissibility of Exhibit ‘C1’ (Attestation Form) on the ground that he was forced to sign it. Said counsel, is of no moment and referred to the case of NWANGBOMU V. THE STATE (2001) 2 ACLR 9 @ 14, Ratio 12 in which it was held by the Supreme Court that where an extra-judicial confession has been proved to have been made voluntarily and it is positive and unequivocal, it amounts to an admission of guilt, will suffice to ground a finding of guilt regardless the fact that the maker resiled there from or retracted it at the trial in as much as such a U-turn does not necessarily make the confession inadmissible. Relied also in MUMUNI V. THE STATE (1975) 6 SC. 79 and AKPAN V. THE STATE (1992) 4 NWLR (PT. 248) 19.
It is further submitted that the retraction of confessional statement by an accused person in his oral testimony in Court during trial is of no moment. Cited CHIOKWE V. THE STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 671) 1441 @ 1461 para B.
In conclusion, learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that confessional statement freely made and voluntarily by an accused person which is direct and positive as in this case is the strongest evidence. Referred to YESUFU V. THE STATE (1976) 6 SC. 167.
Counsel furthered that the Court can convict an accused person the moment the prosecution proves his case beyond reasonable doubt as it is not his duty to prove the case beyond all shadow of doubt. Cited the case of JUA V. THE STATE (2010) CLR 2 (K) SC.
Finally, the learned counsel to the Respondent urged this Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of the lower Court.
RESOLUTION
By a Notice of Appeal dated 15th of January, 2014 this appeal was entered in the Court of Appeal on the 27th day of February, 2014 as shown in the record of appeal at page 65. The Appellant later by the leave of this Court filed an Amended Notice of Appeal on the 10th of November, 2014 containing four (4) grounds of appeal which he relied on in arguing this appeal on the 24th day of October, 2018.
I have earlier on enumerated the issues formulated by the parties to this appeal and succinctly provided the arguments in support thereof. As a reminder, I earlier on picked the lone issue distilled by the Appellant for the determination of the appeal.
The offence for which the Appellant herein was arraigned and tried at the trial Court was murder contrary to Section 316 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 37 Laws of Ondo State, 2006 and punishable, under Section 319 of the same law. For the prosecution to succeed, there has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt of the ingredients of the offence as provided for in Section 316 (supra). See the cases of SULE V. STATE; NKEBISI V. STATE; AKINFE V. STATE and AJAKAIYE V. STATE (SUPRA) where it was held that:
1. ?There must be evidence of death of the deceased.
2. The death resulted from the acts/omission of the accused person.
3. The accused person caused the death intentionally with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequences of the acts/omissions which resulted in the death of the deceased.
The question that comes to mind here is whether the prosecution by the available evidence before the trial Court succeeded in proving his case beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all shadow of doubt. What is required is the establishment of the guilt of the accused person by the available evidence adduced before the trial Court.
In proving the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt, the following are of essence, viz:
1. Direct evidence of person(s) that saw the accused commit the offence.
2. Circumstantial evidence.
3. Confession of the accused.
It is trite that the prosecution can rely on any one of the three modes of proof or on all.
The grouse of the Appellant herein is in regard to the circumstantial evidence and the confessional statement (Exhibit ‘C’) relied upon by the learned trial judge in conviction and sentence of the Appellant.
On this note, I painstakingly read the Record of Appeal transmitted to this Court on the 26th March, 2014 with keen interest to both the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the lower Court. It is in evidence that PW1, PW3 and PW4 all gave evidence as to the death of the deceased and their discovery at the scene of crime where the Appellant was arrested. The PW2 (Dr. Mustapha Idowu) gave evidence to the effect that he conducted autopsy (Exhibit ‘A’) on the dead body of the deceased (Jonathan Sunday Adefarati). PW5 testified to the effect that in the course of investigation of the alleged offence, the Appellant disclosed that he fought with the deceased and led them to where he dragged the deceased under the bridge. His words:
“I and my team visited the scene of crime at Okia, Oka. The accused showed us where he fought with the deceased. He showed us the two accidental buses he was guarding. The accused led us to where he dragged the deceased under the bridge.”
This is on pages 19 lines 25-26 and 20 lines 1-2 of the record of appeal. The totality of the evidence of PW1-PW5 are on pages 10-20 of the transmitted Record of Appeal.
The evidence of the Appellant as DW1 in defence is on pages 21-22 of the record. In the course of his testimony, the Appellant did not deny that PW1 and PW3 were among the people that arrested him and did not deny being around the scene of crime on that fateful night of the murder of the deceased.
The above pieces of evidence though circumstantial pointed irresistibly that the death of the deceased was as a result of the acts/omission of the Appellant. The law is trite that to support a conviction, circumstantial evidence must be cogent and unequivocal to such an extent that it must be sufficiently compelling as to lead to the only conclusion that it is the accused and no one else that committed the offence.
The pieces of evidence before the lower Court are so compelling as to lead to the conclusion that the Appellant committed the offence. This I found and so hold. See the cases of ADEBAYO V. THE STATE; IWEKA V. FRN; AJAKAIYE V. THE STATE (SUPRA) and THOMAS V. THE STATE (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1570) 230 @ 234-235, Ratios 2 and 3.
On the issue of Exhibit ‘C’ my perusal of same disclosed that the Appellant herein admitted killing the deceased (Jonathan Sunday Adefarati) by beating him with a stick, dragging the corpse to a bridge and cut off his penis after the killing with intention to use it for ritual purpose. The said exhibit was the confessional statement of the Appellant made at state C.I.D. Akure which was tendered in Court without objection from the defence.
During his testimony at the trial Court, the Appellant made a U-turn to say that he was forced to sign Exhibit ‘C’. This the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the retraction was an afterthought to mislead the Court and relied in the Supreme Court decision in the case of USUNG V. THE STATE (SUPRA). I subscribed to this contention that the retraction was an afterthought. See NWANGBOMU V. THE STATE (SUPRA). The retraction of the Appellant in his oral testimony in Court during trial is of no moment. I so hold. See CHIOKWE V. THE STATE (SUPRA). See also the case of OPARA V. A. G. FED (2017) 9 NWLR (PT. 1569) 61 @ 71, Ratio 11.
I found on record that the learned trial judge after due consideration and evaluation of Exhibit ‘C’ made a finding of facts on it when he held thus:
“With the review of the available evidence vis-a-vis the statement of the defendant, Exhibit C, I have no doubt in my mind that there were a lot outside Exhibit C to show that it was true. The contents of Exhibit C had also been corroborated by the other facts proved at the trial. The confession is very possible. The defendant had the opportunity of committing the offence. It is clear from the evidence that the defendant was at the place where the corpse of Sunday Adefarati was discovered that night when the deceased walked through the road during the night hours never to be seen alive again. In view of all these, I have no doubt in my mind that the confessional statement, Exhibit C had passed the stringent tests as laid down in Gabriel v. The State (Supra) and the Court can rely on it. The implication of this conclusion is that the prosecution has proved that the defendant on the night of the 26th February, 2010 killed Sunday Adefarati by beating him with stick while they were fighting and the defendant later cut off his penis with cutlass”.
It is my deduction that Exhibit C was corroborated by the evidence of PW1-PW5 on record to ground the conviction and sentence of the Appellant as rightly done by the learned trial judge.
Flowing from the aforementioned, this appeal is berate of any merit and dismissed. The judgment of the lower Court delivered by Hon. Justice D. I. Kolawole on the 18th December, 2013 is hereby affirmed.
UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft form, the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi, JCA. I am in total agreement with his reasoning and final conclusions.
I have nothing more to add. I affirm the judgment of the lower Court in convicting and sentencing the Appellant.
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA J.C.A.: I have read in draft before now and agree as did my learned brother R. M. Abdullahi, JCA in his lead Judgment that the Appellant’s guilt for the offence of murder had been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
The un ex-plained murder of the deceased in circumstances of beating him with a stick and finding his penis severed are such that can clearly be inferred as intentional infliction of grievous injury with intent to kill.
There were no attenuating circumstances proved in defence.
The trial Judge was not wrong to hold that the death of the human being proved had been caused by the Appellant intentionally.
I subscribe to the appeal being dismissed.
Appearances:
E.I. Oboh with him, D.J. Oyetuga, Esq.For Appellant(s)
G.A. Olowoporoku (DPP, MOJ, Ondo State) with him, D.C. Olafimihan, B.V. Faladun and J.D. Joshua (SC)For Respondent(s)
