UGO v. STATE
(2020)LCN/15702(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020
CA/E/38C/2019
Before Our Lordships:
Monica Bolna’anDongban-Mensem Justice of the Court of Appeal
MisituraOmodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal
Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
JUDE UGO APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE PROSECUTION
The law is trite that the burden of proving the charge against an accused personis on the prosecution. The prosecution must discharge that burden by adducing cogent and credible evidence to establish all the elements of the offence for which the accused person is charged. MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.
THE METHODS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
It is trite that the prosecution can prove the guilt of an accused person by one or a combination of the following methods (1) Confessional statement of the accused person. (2) Circumstantial evidence. (3) Evidence of an eye witness. See BASSEY V. STATE (2019) LPELR -46910 (SC) AT 23-24 (C-B). STATE V. SUNDAY (2019) LPELR- 46943 (SC) AT 25 (B-F). In this case, there was no evidence of an eye witness. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 as to what happened to the deceased before she fell unconscious is all hearsay and from the record, it is clear that the Court below did not rely on the evidence of any of those witnesses to reach a conclusion that the appellant kicked the deceased in her mouth. The statement of the appellant was the basis of his conviction. MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.
THE VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS THE BEST EVIDENCE
The law is trite that a clear, unequivocal and voluntary confession of an accused person can ground a confession. A confessional statement, where voluntarily made, is the best evidence that the accused committed the offence and it can be solely relied upon to convict an accused person. However, where the accused person resiles from or retracts his statement, the trial Court must subject the statement to the following tests laid down by law. 1. Whether there is anything outside the confession to show that the statement is true, 2. Whether it is corroborated 3. Whether the statement made in it of fact are true as far as they can be tested. 4. Whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the offence. 5. Whether it is consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved. See STATE V. SA’IDU (2019) LPELR- 47397 (SC) AT 11-17 (C-D). MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.
THE PROPER TIME TO RAISE AN OBJECTIO N TO THE ADMISSION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
The law is settled that the proper time to raise an objection to the admission of a confessional statement is when it is sought to be tendered and not when the accused person is being cross examined on it after it had been admitted without objection as the appellant seems to postulate. See TOPE V. STATE (2019) 15 NWLR (PT.1695) 289. In BASSEY V. STATE (2019)LPELR-46901 (SC) AT 28-31 (F-A), the Supreme Court Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C held that :
“…the voluntariness and the objection thereto on an extra judicial statement must come at the time of the tendering of the statement as thereafter becomes too late for the objection on voluntariness to be addressed and if the concern now brought up so late is a resiling of the statement i.e. that the appellant had not made the statement, the admissibility is not affected rather what would be in consideration is the weight to be attached to the statement which would be admitted. See OSENI V THE STATE (2012) VOL. 208 LRCN 151 AT 183 AND 184 A. MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.
THE TEST OF THE VOLUNTARINESS OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
The Court in considering the principle on admissibility of extra-judicial statement or confession of an accused person held inter alias “Another principle of the criminal law which has been consistently repeated in our law report is: at what time does an accused person object to the admissibility of a statement credited to him as a confession. This Court in its several decisions answered the question in the following words: the question of the voluntariness of a confessional statement is tested at the time the statement issought to be tendered in evidence. In the instant case, the confessional statement was tendered (sic) without any objection from the defence. None of the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined as to their involuntariness. MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Enugu State, Aguobuowa Judicial Division delivered on 17/10/2018 in charge No. A/17C/2014. The case of the prosecution is that on the 2nd day of February, 2014, the deceased who was the Appellant’s wife left the Appellant’s house in the morning and came back some hours later the same day. The Appellant scolded her for leaving his three (3) children in the house without providing food for them. The couple had a hot exchange of words leading to a fight. The Appellant’s mother separated them. The Appellant went back to his farm. The Appellant returned from farm work later and was sleeping in his room when the deceased entered the appellant’s room and hit the appellant in his left eye with a big piece of firewood in retaliation for the beating the Appellant gave her previously. The deceased ran away after the attack. People ran after the deceased and brought her back. They sat her down in her husband’s premises. The appellant rushed the deceased and kicked her in the mouth. The deceased, who was four (4) months pregnant faintedand became unconscious. She eventually died three (3) days later.
The appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Enugu State, Aguobuowa Judicial Division on a one count charge of murder under Section 274(1) of the Criminal Code Cap 30, Volume 11 of the Revised Laws of Enugu State 2004. Particulars of the offence stated on the charge sheet are as follows:
“Jude Ugo on or about 2nd day of February, 2014 at Ogbogho Village in Ezeagu Local Government Area did unlawfully kill one Monnet Ezechi, a four months old pregnant woman by beating and kicking her on the mouth and she fainted which caused her death.”
The prosecution called 4 witnesses. PW1 and PW2 are the sister and father of the deceased. PW3 was the investigating police officer. PW4 was the medical doctor who examined the body of the deceased. The defence called 3 witnesses. At the end of trial, the Court below convicted the appellant of the offence of murder and sentenced him to death.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court below, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against the judgment on 5/11/2018. An amended notice of appeal filed on 7/11/2019 was deemed asproperly filed and served on 10/2/2020. The five grounds of appeal in the amended notice of appeal without their particulars are as follows:
GROUND 1
“The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
GROUND 2
The prosecution did not prove the offence of murder against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.
GROUND 3
The trial Court erred in law when it relied on the second limb of Section 271 of the Criminal Law of Enugu State 2004 to convict the appellant of the offence of murder.
GROUND 4
The trial Court did not properly evaluate the evidence of the prosecution before convicting the appellant and sentencing him to death.
GROUND 5
The trial Court erred in law when it admitted the extra judicial statement of the appellant through the prosecution witness as truth of what it contains.”
An amended Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 7/11/2019 and deemed as properly filed and served on 10/2/2020. Consequently, the respondent’s brief of argument filed on 21/8/2019 was also deemed as properly filed and served. The Appellant submitted the following issue for determination:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>
“Did the Respondent prove the allegation of murder of Mannet Ugo by the Appellant beyond reasonable doubts to be entitled to conviction and sentencing of the Appellant to death. (Distilled from grounds 2, 3, 4 and 5.)”
The Respondent submitted a similar issue to the one above as follows:
”Whether having regard to the facts and evidence before the trial Court, the Prosecution proved the charge of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Appellant submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were based on hearsay as none of them was an eye witness of the incident that led to the death of the deceased and all the witnesses for the defence gave evidence that the Appellant did not beat or kick the deceased on her mouth as alleged by the prosecution.
It is submitted that the evidence of the defence that the deceased, a 4 months old pregnant woman at the time of the incident fell down and hit her head on the ground several times after she dealt a heavy blow on the head of the appellant with a wood, was not contradicted. The Appellant argued that assuming without conceding that theAppellant kicked the deceased as alleged which allegation was denied, the finding of the Court below that “it is obvious that the accused person meant to harm the deceased when he kicked her on the mouth” is not supported nor can it be inferred from the evidence either of the prosecution or of the defence since intention is not something that can be easily detected by human eye, it can only be inferred by the circumstances surrounding a given case. He referred to ORISADIPE V. STATE (2015) LPELR-41717 at 41-43.
The Appellant contended that the evidence of PW4, the medical doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased did not in any way implicate the appellant in the death of the deceased and cannot be regarded as proof beyond reasonable doubt because the features described by him could have resulted from the running and falling down of the deceased given her fragile nature as a pregnant woman more so when the evidence of DW2 and DW3 who were eye witnesses to the incident was not controverted or challenged in any manner whatsoever during the cross examination.
It is further submitted that a trial judge in both civil and criminalcases has a duty to evaluate all the pieces of evidence adduced by the parties before arriving at a decision but all that the Court below did in this case was to rely on the extra judicial statement of the appellant on the basis that it was admitted without objection without subjecting it to the six tests laid down by the law. He referred to R V SYKES(1913) 1 CAR 233. OSENI V. STATE (2012) LPELR – 7833, 24-25 SC; MUSA V. STATE (2018) LPELR-43846-7-8 SC. KOKU V. STATE (2019) LPELR-48121 @ 30-32. STATE V. OGBUBUNJO & ANOR. (2001) LPELR-3223 AT P. 38. He urged the Court to set aside the judgment of trial Court, discharge and acquit the Appellant.
The Respondent submitted that undoubtedly, the Appellant’s confessional statement, Exhibit A is consistent with the evidence of PW1 and that of PW4, the medical doctor in all material respects and has therefore passed the test set forth in R V SYKES 1 CAR 233. It is further submitted that the conviction of the appellant on the basis of his confessional statement was perfectly justifiable in spite of the Appellant’s retraction of the said confession under cross-examination as the law is settled that a free andvoluntary confession without more is sufficient to ground the conviction of an accused person. He referred to OLABODE ABIRIFON V THE STATE (2013) 13 NWLR (PT 1372) 587 AT 600. MOHAMMED YAHAYA V THE STATE (1980) 12 SC at 292. PATRICK IKEMSON & 2 Ors V THE STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 110) 455 at 473. STANLEY IDIGUN EGBOGHONOME V THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt 306) 383. GABRIEL OSAKWE V THE STATE (1994) 2 SCNJ 57 at 79. It is the contention of the respondent that the appellant having kicked the deceased who was four (4) months old pregnant in the mouth, causing her to faint and lose consciousness and as rightly pointed out by the Trial Judge at Page 116 of the Records: “She never regained consciousness and died after three days,” it is immaterial that the appellant did not intend to hurt the deceased. The Appellant was not convicted on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 but on Exhibit A, his confessional statement. He referred to Section 271 of the Criminal Code. He urged the Court to hold that the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
RESOLUTION
The law is trite that the burden of proving the charge against an accused personis on the prosecution. The prosecution must discharge that burden by adducing cogent and credible evidence to establish all the elements of the offence for which the accused person is charged.
In this case, the prosecution must prove the following elements of the offence of murder as laid down in a plethora of authorities (1) The death of a human being (2) That the death was caused by the act or omission of the accused person (3) That the act of the accused was done intentionally or with Knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence. See AKINSUWA V. STATE (2019) LPELR- 47621(SC) AT 22-25. There is adequate evidence on record showing that MONET EZECHI, the Appellant’s wife died as confirmed by the medical report exhibit B. Exhibit B was confirmed by the evidence of PW4 who performed the autopsy on the deceased. In exhibit B, the cause of death is stated to be respiratory failure following intra cranial haemorrhage (bleeding). In his evidence before the Court, he summarised his findings as follows: “1. Evidence of pregnancy. 2. Congestion of the lungs. 3. Bleeding into the skull cavity. 4. Swelling (Oedema) of the brainwith part of the brain pushed into the large opening where the spinal cord exits from. This cut off the patient’s ability to breath. The cause of death was reporting failure resulting in bleeding into the brain which was as a result of trauma.’’ Under cross examination, he said if a person’s head is hit on a stone, it can result in the intra cranial damage.
It is trite that the prosecution can prove the guilt of an accused person by one or a combination of the following methods (1) Confessional statement of the accused person. (2) Circumstantial evidence. (3) Evidence of an eye witness. See BASSEY V. STATE (2019) LPELR -46910 (SC) AT 23-24 (C-B). STATE V. SUNDAY (2019) LPELR- 46943 (SC) AT 25 (B-F). In this case, there was no evidence of an eye witness. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 as to what happened to the deceased before she fell unconscious is all hearsay and from the record, it is clear that the Court below did not rely on the evidence of any of those witnesses to reach a conclusion that the appellant kicked the deceased in her mouth. The statement of the appellant was the basis of his conviction. The law is trite that aclear, unequivocal and voluntary confession of an accused person can ground a confession. A confessional statement, where voluntarily made, is the best evidence that the accused committed the offence and it can be solely relied upon to convict an accused person. However, where the accused person resiles from or retracts his statement, the trial Court must subject the statement to the following tests laid down by law. 1. Whether there is anything outside the confession to show that the statement is true, 2. Whether it is corroborated 3. Whether the statement made in it of fact are true as far as they can be tested. 4. Whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the offence. 5. Whether it is consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved. See STATE V. SA’IDU (2019) LPELR- 47397 (SC) AT 11-17 (C-D). The Appellant in his statement to the police stated that:
“On Sunday 2/2/2014 my wife left my house at about 6am and went to unknown place leaving her three kids hungry. At about 10am of same day she came back and when I asked her where she went, she started quarrelling me, my mother Mrs Gladys Ugo told us to stopquarrelling and we stopped and I left to where I was working. At about 6pm of same 2/2/2014 as I came back from work I was resting sleeping in my house while my wife was in the house. While I was sleeping my wife carried one big fire wood and hit me on my left eye because of the beating. I became unconscious and she started running into the bush. The people that were around when my mother shouted were, Cosmas Ani, one Chosen his real name not know, Oliver Obodo and some elders were the people I saw when I got consciousness. I don’t know the people that got my wife from the bush she ran to. When I saw my wife sitting down before this people mention above, I came to her and kicked her on her mouth and she fainted on the ground. On 3/2/2014 she was very weak and I took her to one maternity house at AforOghe while we were in the maternity I tried to call my father in law and my step mother in law but their lines was (sic) not going. On 5/2/2014 the elder sister of my wife Nneka Ezechi and my step mother in law came to AforOghe maternity and Nneka suggested that we should take her to Somuadina Hospital Abakpa which we did and on getting there doctor was notaround we took her to Parklane Hospital and on our way she died. It is true that my wife was three or four months pregnant when I kicked my wife she was unconscious until three days before she finally died. I don’t know if the people that brought my wife from the bush beat her or not. I cannot say that my wife died as a result of the kicking I kicked her on her mouth.”
In his evidence before the Court, he stated that:
“On 2/2/2014 in the morning Mannet left our home without telling me and leaving our children especially the last child who was still being nursed. She came back later in the day and the baby had defecated everywhere. I asked her where she went and she started scolding me. This made me scold her in return then reasoning that her illness was probably starting again. I held my peace. Mannet said she would deal with me in a manner I would not like. In the evening Mannet attacked me as I was sleeping causing me to faint. Mannet ran away so our neighbour gathered some going after her and some trying to revive me. Mannet attacked me with firewood. When I regained consciousness I saw people coming with Mannet in front of thehouse covered with blood all over her body. Mannet ran into a bush that had a jully and she injured herself thereby resulting in the wounds she sustained from throwing herself and bleeding. On the next day being 3/2/2014 I took her to a hospital at AforOghe for treatment of the wounds she sustained from throwing herself and hitting her head on the ground. We remained at that hospital at AforOghe from 3/6/2014. On 6/2/2014, Mannet’s Elder sister and step mother came to the hospital and said they wanted to transfer her to Enugu to Somadina Hospital in Abakpa Nike Enugu. I paid part of the bill at the hospital AforOghe then chartered a vehicle to convey us to Somadina Hospital and because there was no electricity and the doctor was not in they suggested that we go to Park Lane Hospital which we did. At Parklane the doctors started administering treatment but did not allow me to come into the room where she was being treated after some time her elder sister rushed out and came back with some men who arrested me and took me to Abakaliki Road Police Station from where I was transferred to Aguobu.”
A comparison of the Appellant’s statementand his evidence in Court shows that there are some facts which confirm that the statement is true. The Appellant in both the statement and his evidence in Court stated that the Appellant hit him with fire wood on his head. He also stated that people ran after her and brought her back. In his statement when the incident was still very fresh in his memory, he did not say that the deceased was covered with blood all over her body when she was brought back. In his evidence in Court, he said the deceased ran into a bush that had jully and injured herself. How did he know where the deceased ran to and how she got the alleged injuries on her when he wanted the Court to believe that he fell unconscious when the deceased hit him with firewood on his head. According to his evidence, it was after he was revived that he saw people coming with her. Whatever happened between the moment he was allegedly hit on his head and the time he allegedly regained consciousness, the Appellant is not in a position to know.
Contrary to the evidence of the appellant in Court, DW3 who said he witnessed the incident testified as follows at pages 84- 85 of the record:”I had returned from Aba specially to repair the leaking roof in my room. I was standing in the passage watching the carpenter when my brother entered his room. I saw the deceased carrying a piece of wood which I thought she was going to use it to cook. After some time I heard my brother shout in the room and when I and the neighbours run out we saw she had used the piece of wood to hit my brother after which she took off running down the stream close by to our house. My mother and I went into Jude’s room found him bleeding. We used a cloth to tie the wound on his head and try to get someone to take us to hospital as there was no nearby hospital or chemist. As we were doing so people returning from stream informed us on seeing the crowd gathered asked us what the problem was saying they saw the deceased running down the stream, falling and getting up as she ran and went to hide in the bush. Some of the people gathered namely Oliver, Obodo, Amechi Ugo had went (sic) to the bush where Mannet was hiding and brought her back to the house where they sat her down in the front of the house. Next thing she fell as if she wanted to sleep. The accused went to her andstarted calling her but she did not respond. This prompted us to start calling drivers but no one agreed to come because of the bad roads but they promised to come the next morning. Early the next morning the driver came to pick Mannet but before the deceased woke up from her fainting but was still not talking. The deceased was rushed to the hospital with the accused person accompanying her but i did not go with them.”
DW3 did not say that the Appellant was unconscious at any time. His evidence that some people said they saw the deceased running, falling and getting up is hearsay. The Appellant and DW3 confirmed the fact that the deceased fainted. Though DW3 said the appellant woke up that day but she was still not talking. PW1 said the deceased was in coma when she got to the hospital where she was taken by the Appellant. The deceased died on their way to Park Lane Hospital and was confirmed dead when they got to the hospital. From all the above facts, it is clear that the confessional statement of the appellant that he kicked the deceased is true. The story that the deceased was covered with blood and fainted as a result of the injuries she sufferedwhen she ran into the bush is an afterthought. DW2 said some young men ran in pursuit of the deceased when the Appellant screamed and she followed behind. She said she saw the deceased fell down and pulled herself up as she ran. The deceased fell into the river panting. The young men got her from the river and carried her back to the house. From the evidence of DW3, no one ran after the deceased. It was when some people returning from the stream informed them that they saw the deceased running towards the stream that some people went to look for her and brought her back from where she was hiding. A Careful and sober consideration of the entire evidence on record shows that the story that the deceased hit the Appellant with fire wood while sleeping and ran away is suspect. Unfortunately, the deceased did not leave to narrate her own side of the story. However, the living as hard as they tried could not present a coherent and credible story.
The Court below may not have specifically stated that the confessional statement was being subjected to the required tests laid by the law, however, it is obvious that the statement passed all the tests laid down forascertainment of the truth of a confessional statement.
The Appellant strenuously argued that the Appellant’s statement should have been tendered during the cross examination of the appellant. First, the statement was tendered through PW3, the investigating police officer who recorded the statement of the accused person. When the statement was tendered, the appellant who was represented by counsel had every opportunity to raise objection to its admissibility but chose not to do so. The tendering of the statement through PW3 afforded the appellant the opportunity to challenge the recorder of the statement as to its accuracy and truthfulness which was not done. Secondly, the statement was shown to the appellant and he was also cross examined on it after it had been admitted without objection. The law is settled that the proper time to raise an objection to the admission of a confessional statement is when it is sought to be tendered and not when the accused person is being cross examined on it after it had been admitted without objection as the appellant seems to postulate. See TOPE V. STATE (2019) 15 NWLR (PT.1695) 289. In BASSEY V. STATE (2019)LPELR-46901 (SC) AT 28-31 (F-A), the Supreme Court Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C held that :
“…the voluntariness and the objection thereto on an extra judicial statement must come at the time of the tendering of the statement as thereafter becomes too late for the objection on voluntariness to be addressed and if the concern now brought up so late is a resiling of the statement i.e. that the appellant had not made the statement, the admissibility is not affected rather what would be in consideration is the weight to be attached to the statement which would be admitted. See OSENI V THE STATE (2012) VOL. 208 LRCN 151 AT 183 AND 184 A. The Court in considering the principle on admissibility of extra-judicial statement or confession of an accused person held inter alias “Another principle of the criminal law which has been consistently repeated in our law report is: at what time does an accused person object to the admissibility of a statement credited to him as a confession. This Court in its several decisions answered the question in the following words: the question of the voluntariness of a confessional statement is tested at the time the statement issought to be tendered in evidence. In the instant case, the confessional statement was tendered (sic) without any objection from the defence. None of the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined as to their involuntariness. It was until the prosecution had closed its case and the Appellants were testifying in their own defence in the witness box that the issue was belatedly raised. The trial judge was right to dismiss this aspect of the defence case as an afterthought having regard to the qualitative evidence tendered by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court on the subject”. Also my lords, in the case of EGHAREVBA V THE STATE (SUPRA) AT PAGE 213 AF, this Court reiterated the above principle when it held inter alia as follows: “Once a confessional statement is tendered and admitted without objection by the defence, it is good evidence and can be relied upon. The Court can even utilize it alone, place a conviction without corroboration even if the appellant had retracted the making thereof”. At the defence stage where the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement of the appellant is being raised is too late and would not affect theadmissibility of the confessional statement Exhibit B. See Igri v State(2012) 6-7 NJSC (Pt. III) page 107 at 113-114; Ayinde v The State (1972) 3 SC 153 at 158-159, Nwokoronkwo v The State (1972) 1 SC 135; Archibong v The State (2006) 5 SC (Pt.III) 1; Princewill v State (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt.353) 703.”
From the entire evidence on record, the Court below was right to rely on the confessional statement of the appellant to find that the appellant kicked the deceased in the mouth. I am in complete agreement with the Court below that the Appellant may not have intended to kill the deceased but a reasonable man would know that kicking a pregnant woman in any part of her body would cause grievous harm, endanger her life and may lead to her death. SeeOLAIYA V. STATE (2017) LPELR-43714(SC) AT 5-7 (B-D). The Appellant knew that his act led to the death of the deceased, hence the frantic effort to avoid his confessional statement. Kicking a pregnant woman is an act of recklessness and wickedness. By the evidence of PW2, DW1 (the Appellant) and DW2 (the Appellant’s mother), attempt was made to show that the deceased had some mental issues. That is another reasonwhy the deceased should not have been kicked or subjected to any act of violence. See HAMZA V. THE STATE (2019) LPELR- 47858 (SC) AT 18- 26 (B-E). It is clear from the evidence on record that the deceased fainted and never regained her consciousness until she died. Justice is not only for an accused person but also for the victim of the Appellant’s act who was sent to the grave along with her unborn baby.
In MOHAMMED YAHAYA V. THE STATE (1980) 12 SC AT 292, the Supreme Court said:
“A distinction has to be drawn between a witness in the box giving evidence in direct contradiction with his statement to the police. In such a case, since the unsworn statement to the police is not evidence and since his evidence in Court is a retraction of what he had earlier told the police, the Court would regard the evidence in Court as negligible and the case will have to be proved by and on other evidence. This is not the case with an accused person who retracts in Court what he told the police in his statement made when the facts were fresh in his memory. In the latter case, the Court can still act on the statement of the accused person though unsworn.”<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>
In GABRIEL OSAKWE V. THE STATE (1994) 2 SCNJ 57 at 79, the Supreme Court held that:
“Where a witness makes a statement which is inconsistent with his testimony, such testimony is to be treated as not reliable while the statement is not regarded as evidence upon which the Court can act, should not apply to confessional statements. It will be an escape route freely taken by an accused person without any hindrance to escape from justice. It will not be in the interest of the society to allow a man who has confessed to his crime to walk out of the Court a free man simply because he had a change of mind. The whole trial will be a mockery.”
On the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the Court below rightly convicted the Appellant on the basis of his confessional statement. The appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the High Court of Enugu State delivered on 17/10/2018 is hereby affirmed. The conviction and sentence passed on the appellant is hereby affirmed.
MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.: I agree with the lead Judgment prepared by my learned brother; MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, JCA.The conduct of the Appellant clearly led to the death of his expectant wife and child. He has to face the consequences of his inordinate violent conduct.
I too hereby affirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the draft of the lead judgment just delivered herein by my learned brother MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, JCA and I totally endorse the reasoning and conclusion therein.
For the more detailed reasoning in the lead judgment, I equally find no merit in this appeal and I dismiss it accordingly.
I adopt the consequential orders in the lead judgment as mine.
Appearances:
Chike P. Omeje For Appellant(s)
Chief M. E. Eze, A. G. Enugu State, with him, T. A. Ngene, Deputy Director, SerahMadu, C.L.O. Dr. AnayoEdeh, C.L.O, U. D. Nebo, P.L.O and B. I. Aneke, L. O. all the Ministry of Justice, Enugu State For Respondent(s)