ANDREW AYEDATIWOR V THE STATE (2018)

ANDREW AYEDATIWOR V THE STATE

(2018) LCN/4597(SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Thursday, February 1, 2018


Case Number: SC.356/2014

 

JUSTICES:

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE

SIDI DAUDA BAGE

 

APPELLANTS

ANDREW AYEDATIWOR

 

RESPONDENTS

THE STATE

 

COUNSELS

M. A. Ebute, Esq, for the Appellant|Uwemedimo Nwoko, Esq. (A.G Akwa Ibom State) with Uduak Eyo-Nsa, Esq, (DPP) and Godwin Udom, Esq. (SSC) for the Respondent.|

WHAT IS MURDER?

“Murder has long been defined as, “the taking of human life by a person who either: (a) has a malicious and willful intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm or; (b) is wickedly reckless as to the consequences of his act upon his victim. Therefore, for murder, the suspect must have an evil intent, that is, a criminal intent, although, it is not necessary that there should be an intent to kill. See; R. Vs Viockers (1957) 2 A; ER 741 at 744; Yekini Afosi Vs. The State (2013) 12 SCM (Pt.2) 28′ (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt.1371) 329; (2013) 6-7 SC (Pt.lll) 37; (2013) 6 SCNJ (Pt.l) 1, (2014) All FWLR (Pt.725) 268.”

 

INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION FOR MURDER

“It is trite law and settled, that for the prosecution to secure conviction for charge of murder, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (a)That the deceased had died; (b)That the death of the person was caused by the accused person; (c)That the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. See; Edwor Ogba Vs The State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.222) 164; (1992) 02 SCNJ 100; Uchenna Nwachukwu Vs. The State (2002) 12 SC 50 143 Okolo Ochemaje Vs The State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.1109) 10 SCM 103; (2008) 6-7 SC (Pt. ll) 1; (2008) LPELR 2198.”

 

 

WAYS OF PROVING GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

“In law, it is trite that the guilt of an accused who is charged with the commission of a crime can be proved by way of the following:- (a)Confessional statement of the accused which has passed the requirement of the law; (b)Evidence of eye witness who saw or witnessed the commission of the alleged crime; or (c)Circumstantial evidence which links the accused and no other person with the commission of the crime or the offence charged. See; Joseph Lori & Anor Vs. The State (1980) 8-11 SC (Reprint) 52; (1980) LPELR R-1794.”

 

NATURE OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT THAT WILL BE SUFFICIENT WITHOUT A CORROBORATION

“Ordinarily, and the law is trite on the point that, a man may be convicted on his own confession alone even without corroboration and there is no law against it. The position of the law is that if a suspect makes a free and voluntary confession in his extra judicial statement to the police, which confession is found to be direct and positive and the court is satisfied with its truth, such confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground conviction without corroboration. See; Asimiyu Alarape & Ors Vs The State (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt.705) 79; (2001) 2 SC 114; (2001) LPELR 412; Ozana Ubierho Vs. The State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.919) 644; (2005) 2 SC (Pt. l) 18; (2005) LPELR- 3283. There is certainly no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. The confession is admissible. See; Akeem Agboola Vs. The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1366) 619; (2013) 8 SCM, 157; (2013) All FWLR (Pt.704) 139; (2013) LPELR – 20652.” “Ordinarily, and the law is trite on the point that, a man may be convicted on his own confession alone even without corroboration and there is no law against it. The position of the law is that if a suspect makes a free and voluntary confession in his extra judicial statement to the police, which confession is found to be direct and positive and the court is satisfied with its truth, such confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground conviction without corroboration. See; Asimiyu Alarape & Ors Vs The State (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt.705) 79; (2001) 2 SC 114; (2001) LPELR 412; Ozana Ubierho Vs. The State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.919) 644; (2005) 2 SC (Pt. l) 18; (2005) LPELR- 3283. There is certainly no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. The confession is admissible. See; Akeem Agboola Vs. The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1366) 619; (2013) 8 SCM, 157; (2013) All FWLR (Pt.704) 139; (2013) LPELR – 20652.”

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Close Menu