UMUKORO v. STATE
(2020)LCN/15735(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020
CA/AK/267C/2019
Before Our Lordships
OyebisiFolayemiOmoleye Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
SYLVESTER UMUKORO APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
To establish the guilt of a person charged with the offence of murder, the prosecution must prove that, the deceased died, the death of the deceased was caused by the accused and the act or omission of the accused which cause the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. See Akpan Vs. State (2016) 9 NWLR (pt. 1516) 110, Agu Vs. State (2017) 10 NWLR (pt. 1573) 171.
The ingredient of the offence may be proven through, a confessional statement or circumstantial evidence or evidence of eyewitnesses. See Itu Vs. State (2016) 5 NWLR (pt. 1506) 445, Igbikis V. State (2017) 11 NWLR (pt. 1575) 126. RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A
WAYS OF PROVING THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES
As already noted, circumstantial evidence constitutes one of the ways of proving commission of crimes. For circumstantial evidence to ground conviction, it must be positive, compelling, direct and link an accused with the offence. See Sani V State (2017) LPELR 43475 (SC), Uzor V. State (2014) 12 NWLR (pt. 1422) 548, Esseyin V. State (2018) LPELR 44476 (SC), Usman Vs. State (supra). In the case of Mohammed V. State (2007) 11 NWLR (pt. 1045) 303, the Supreme Court had this to say:
“It is the proof of circumstances from which, according to the ordinary course of human affairs the existence of some fact may reasonably be presumed… it is that evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics.” RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI ,J.C.A.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE
The Law is that where the cause of death is known or could be inferred from the circumstances of evidence adduced or where the death flows is instantaneously on affect or there is an abundant evidence of the manner of death, as in the instant case, medical evidence is rendered Otiose. See Maigari V. State (2017) 13 NWLR (pt. 1384) 339, Galadima V. State (2017) 12 NWLR (pt. 1580) 329, Ogba V. State (1992) 2 SCNJ.In the instant case, apart from Exhibit 1, the medical report, there are other circumstantial evidence which reveal the cause of death of the deceased and link it to the Appellant act. RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI,J.C.A.
THE BEST EVIDENCE OFTEN USED IS THE CIRCUMSTSNTIAL EVIDENCE
“Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undesigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial.
…. Each case depends on its own facts but the one test which such evidence must satisfy is that it should lead to the guilt of the accused person and leave no degree to possibility or chance that other persons could have been responsible for the commission of the offence.”
See also EBENEHI V THE STATE (2009) 6 NWLR, PT. 1138, 431; ABOKOKUYANRO V STATE (2016) LPELR-40107 (SC) and STATE V SUNDAY (2019);IGBIKIS V STATE (2017) LPELR-41667 (SC); DANJUMA V STATE (2019) LPELR-47037 (SC) and PAUL V STATE (2019) LPELR – 47386 (SC). PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Ondo State sitting at the Akure Judicial Division delivered by Honourable Justice Yemi Fasanmi on 29th April, 2019.
The facts of this case is simple, the case for the prosecution was that the Appellant caused the death of one Late Mubo Olowoniyi by shooting her with a gun on 17/06/2017 which resulted in her death. On the 17th June, 2017 in the morning hours, PW2 met Mubo Olowoniyi (the deceased) by the door already on her way out. PW2 assisted the deceased in clipping her wristwatch and he asked the deceased where she was going. The deceased told PW2 that she received a call from the Appellant in respect of the palm plantation she wanted to buy from him and that the Appellant asked her to come that morning in order to carry out the sacrifice to appease the gods to allow her access into the farm. The deceased left home that morning and never returned. Earlier on the 4th of May, 2017, the deceased gave PW2 the sum of Fifty Thousand (N50,000.00k) to pay into the account of the Appellant aspart of the money in renting the palm plantation which the Appellant told the deceased he was assisting her in renting to her. On the 11th June, 2017 when the Appellant invited the deceased to have a look at the palm plantation she intended to rent, the deceased’s husband asked PW2 who is the younger brother of the deceased to accompany her to the palm plantation. When they got there, the Appellant told PW2 and the deceased that they could not enter into the farm as the plantation had been laced with dangerous charm and there is need to make a sacrifice to neutralize the charm. The Appellant thereafter called the deceased on the 17th June, 2017 for the sacrifice.
After investigation, the Appellant was arraigned before the lower Court on a one count charge of murder of the deceased contrary to Section 316 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 37, Vol 1, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria, 2006. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the sole count.
Following the non-guilty plea, the lower Court proceeded to a full trial of the case. In proof of the charge/information, the prosecution called five (5) witnesses, PW1 – PW5 and tendered two documents, Exhibits 1 and 2.
In defence of the charge, the Appellant testified in person and called no other witness.
At the close of the evidence, the parties through their respective counsel, addressed the lower Court. In a considered judgment, delivered on 29th April, 2019, the lower Court found the Appellant guilty of the offence charged, convicted him thereof and sentenced him to death for the murder of the deceased. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision and on 24th June, 2019 lodged a 7 grounds Notice of Appeal, seen at pages 110 – 117 of the Record, and prayed this Court:
1. To allow the appeal,
2. To set aside the judgment delivered by Honourable Justice Yemi Fasanmi of the High Court of Ondo State, Akure Judicial Division on 29th April, 2019 in charge No. AK/96C/2017.
3. To set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below on the Appellant and discharging (sic) and acquitting the Appellant of the charge for the offence of murder.
Thereafter, the parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument in line with the rules governing the hearing of criminal appeals in this Court. The appeal was heard on 20th July, 2020.During the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant, Fred Onuobia Esq., adopted the Appellant’s brief of Argument filed on 19th August, 2019 and the Appellant’s reply brief filed on 25/9/2019, as representing his arguments for the appeal. He urged the Court to allow the appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondent, G. A. Olowoporoku, Esq., adopted the Respondent’s brief of Argument against the appeal. He urged the Court to dismiss it.
In the Appellant’s brief of argument, learned counsel for the Appellant crafted a sole issue for determination to wit:
Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it held that the respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant the offence of murder and convicted and sentenced the appellant to death.
Learned counsel for the Respondent, in his brief of argument equally distilled a sole issue for determination viz:
Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the Respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant the offence of murder and convicted and sentenced the appellant to death.Close look at the two sets of issues shows that they are identical in substance and the sole issue distilled by the Respondent can conveniently be subsumed under the lone issue crafted by the Appellant. For this reason, I will decide the appeal on the sole issue crafted by the Appellant.
ARGUMENT OF THE ISSUE
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court was wrong when it held that the Respondent proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt the offence of murder, and convicted and sentenced the appellant to death. That the evidence led by the Respondent and relied on by the trial Court cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the offence of murder. He posited that the standard required to discharge the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person in criminal cases, is proof beyond reasonable. He cited Section 135 of the Evidence Act and the case of State V. Onyeukwu (2004) All FWLR (pt. 221) 1388, Igabele V. State (2004) 15 NWLR (pt. 896) 314 for the view.
He asserted that there are three methods of proving the guilt of an accused person, that is by confessional statement of an accused person voluntarily made, by circumstantial evidence and by direct eyewitnesses. He cited Udor V. State (2014) LPELR 23064 (SC), Okudo V. State (2011) 3 NWLR (pt. 1234) 209 amongst other for the point.
He argued that the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence in proof of the allegation of murder against the Appellant, and where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, it must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused person. He cited Ezeama V. State (2014) LPELR 22504 (CA), Nweke V. State (2001) LPELR 2119 (SC) for the view.
Counsel reasoned that the trial Court relied on inadmissible hearsay testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in inferring the quilt of the Appellant. He posited that based on the sequence of events narrated by the prosecution witnesses, it is not possible that Exhibit 2, the locally made single barrel gun was used to kill the deceased. That the prosecution did not show that it was the act of the Appellant that caused the death of the deceased and that there is no casual between the Appellant and the death of the deceased. He contended that the prosecution has a duty to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused person caused the death of the deceased by tracing a casual link between the death of the deceased and the act of the accused person. He cited Ojukokaiye V. The State (2015) LPELR 25942 (CA), Aiguoreghian V. The State (2004) 3 NWLR (pt. 860) 367 for the point. That there was no evidence that the Appellant had the requisite intends to kill the deceased. He argued that the Respondent’s evidence did not meet the standard of a decent circumstantial evidence which should leave no room for speculation, possibilities, and contrary inferences.
Learned Counsel reproduces the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses and submitted that the evidence is contradictory and create doubt which should have been resolved in favour of the Appellant.
Counsel posited that the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm on the deceased cannot be deduced from the evidence led by the Respondent. The only element the Respondent was able to prove is that the deceased died but none of the prosecution witnesses testified as to the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased. That the last count of the deceased was in the morning of 17 June, 2017 when the deceased told PW2 that she was going to the plantation. That there was no evidence that the deceased indeed got to the plantation as it does not matter that the corpse was found in the plantation.
Counsel submitted that from the evidence before the trial Court, it is impossible to conclude that the Appellant intended to, or actually caused the death of the deceased. That the Respondent failed to show that the Appellant is guilty of the murder of the deceased because, said Counsel, there is no evidence to link the Appellant with the death of the deceased.
He insisted that the Respondent woefully failed to discharge the burden placed on it to establish the guilt of the Appellant on the allegation of murder. That the trial Court was in error to have found otherwise, that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person rest on the prosecution and it never shifts until the prosecution fully discharged same. He cited Adeyeye Vs. State (1968) NWLR 48, Oluwatoyin Abokokuyanro Vs. The State (2016) LPELR 40107 (SC). He urged the Court to resolve the sole issue in favour of the Appellant, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court, and acquit and discharge the Appellant. Counsel in his reply brief merely reiterated his argument.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the prosecution can prove its case either by the confessional statement of the deceased person, circumstantial evidence or evidence of an eye witnesses. He cited Sunday Vs. State (2013) All FWLR (pt. 682) 1812, State v. Fadezi (2018) 18 NWLR (pt. 1650) 1 for the view.
Counsel reproduced the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that PW1 – PW5 before the lower Court and submitted that the Respondent has proved the case against the Appellant. He posited that the essential ingredients of murder are that somebody died, the act of the Appellant caused the death and that there is intention of causing the death. He cited the cases of Igbikis Vs. The State (2017) 5 SCM, 140, Afosi Vs. The State (2013) 12 SCM 2 for the view.
He reasoned that all the three elements were proved before the lower Court. That there is no contention that the deceased Mubo Olowoniyi died. That all the evidence from both side point to the fact that the deceased died.
Counsel submitted that the standard of proof required to discharge the burden of proof in criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt. That where direct evidence is not available, circumstantial evidence, which is compelling, cogent and pointing irresistibly and unequivocally at the Defendant is admissible to support a conviction. He cited Oketaolegun Vs. State (2015) 13 NWLR (pt. 1477) 538, Idiok Vs. State (2008) Vol. 6 MJSC 36, Usman Vs. State (2013) 12 NWLR (pt. 1367) 77, Odogwu Vs. State (2013) 14 NWLR (pt. 1373) 74, Umar Vs State (2014) 13 NWLR (pt. 1425) 497 amongst other.
He contended that where a dangerous weapon is used by a Defendant to attack a person, the Court will infer that death was a probable consequence of the Defendant’s act. He cited Agu Vs State (2017) 2 SCM 15 for the point. That the use of a gun on a victim as in the instant case, the Appellant intend to cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased which resulted in the death of the deceased. That apart from shooting the deceased, the Appellant also shaved part of the pubic hair of the deceased which pointed that the Appellant has an evil intention to use the deceased for ritual purposes. That the deceased died same day having lost so much blood from the gun shot as established before the lower Court.
He reasoned that from the totality of the evidence before the lower Court, the only inference that can be deduced is that the Appellant intend to cause the deceased grievous bodily harm and that no other reasonable conclusion than that the killing of the deceased was done by the Appellant.
He submitted that the Law gives the Court the latitude to draw inferences from the case before it. That from the evidence before the lower Court, the prosecution has established and proved beyond reasonable doubt the Appellant caused the death of the deceased and that his act was intentional. That circumstantial evidence constitutes one of the ways of establishing commission of crime, therefore, according to Counsel, the lower Court did not err by invoking it in convicting and sentencing the Appellant. He urged this Court to so hold and resolve the sole issue in this appeal against the Appellant.
RESOLUTION
The grievance of the Appellant as can be seen from his submission is the lower Court’s finding that the Respondent discharged the burden of proof and theallegation of the offence of murder against the Appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Appellant was arraigned before the lower Court on a one count charge of murder of one MuboOlowoniyi by shooting her from the back with a locally made single barrel gun contrary to Section 316 and punishable under Section 319 of the Criminal Code Cap 37, Vol. 1, Laws of Ondo State, 2006. To establish the guilt of a person charged with the offence of murder, the prosecution must prove that, the deceased died, the death of the deceased was caused by the accused and the act or omission of the accused which cause the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. See Akpan Vs. State (2016) 9 NWLR (pt. 1516) 110, Agu Vs. State (2017) 10 NWLR (pt. 1573) 171.
The ingredient of the offence may be proven through, a confessional statement or circumstantial evidence or evidence of eyewitnesses. See Itu Vs. State (2016) 5 NWLR (pt. 1506) 445, Igbikis V. State (2017) 11 NWLR (pt. 1575) 126.
In the instant case, the learned trial Judge relied on circumstantial evidence in convicting andsentencing the Appellant for the offence charged. The Appellant decries the lower Court invitation of circumstantial evidence to its aid. As already noted, circumstantial evidence constitutes one of the ways of proving commission of crimes. For circumstantial evidence to ground conviction, it must be positive, compelling, direct and link an accused with the offence. See Sani V State (2017) LPELR 43475 (SC), Uzor V. State (2014) 12 NWLR (pt. 1422) 548, Esseyin V. State (2018) LPELR 44476 (SC), Usman Vs. State (supra). In the case of Mohammed V. State (2007) 11 NWLR (pt. 1045) 303, the Supreme Court had this to say:
“It is the proof of circumstances from which, according to the ordinary course of human affairs the existence of some fact may reasonably be presumed… it is that evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics.”
As already stated, the Appellant was charged with the offence of murder. In order to succeed, the prosecution must proof the ingredients of the offence. In proof of its case, the prosecution called five witnesses. The evidence of PW1 – PW5 demonstrates that the deceased MuboOlowoniyi died. The medical evidence, Exhibit 1 also established the demise of the deceased. The Appellant also is at one with the Respondent that the deceased died. It flows from the above that the Respondent proved the first ingredient of murder, that the deceased died.
With respect to the second ingredient, PW1 the husband of the deceased testified that one Olaomehin Toyin introduced the Appellant to him in February, 2017 when his wife (the deceased) illness failed to respond to orthodox medicine as a native doctor and he treated the illness successfully. That there was a business transaction between the deceased and the Appellant for the lease of a palm tree plantation for the sum of N200,000.00 and he assisted his wife with the sum of N100,000.00 and the deceased later paid the remaining balance of N100,000.00. He furthered that when the deceased informed him that the Appellant is taking her to the palm plantation, he called PW2 a younger brother to the deceased to accompany her to the plantation. That both the deceased and PW2 left and met the Appellant at Irele who conveyed them on hismotorcycle to the plantation at Igbobini. That on 17/6/2017, the deceased told him that she was going to meet the Appellant to perform the necessary rituals at the palm plantation as the Appellant told her that she cannot enter the plantation because there was dangerous charm in the plantation and for her to enter, there need to perform ritual and she left. That when he came back home around 4 – 5pm he discovered that the deceased was not at home. That when he called her telephone number, a man answered his call and told him to come to the Specialist Hospital in Akure and when he went to the Specialist Hospital he could not see his wife and when he called the line it was switched off. That he called his brother in-law and informed him that he was called that the deceased got an accident and that she was taken to Akure but when he went to Akure Specialist Hospital, he could not see her, then his brother in-law told him that his sister did not go to Akure, because she told him that she was going to see the Appellant about the ritual.
That he later called the person that introduced him to the Appellant that his wife left to see the Appellant in theplantation, and she did not come back. That the person saw the Appellant and picked him on his motorcycle, but the Appellant escaped. He concluded that he report the matter to the Police and on 22/6/2017 he was called to come to the Police Station and that the Appellant has been arrested and that the corpse of his wife was found in the said palm plantation.
PW2 testified that his sister’s husband (PW1) called him to accompany the deceased to the Appellant for the lease of palm plantation which he did, and that when they met the Appellant at Irele, he conveyed them on his motorcycle to the palm plantation.
That on arrival at the plantation, the Appellant told them that they cannot enter into the plantation because there are dangerous charms inside and a ritual has to be done before they can enter into the plantation. The Appellant advised the deceased to come back at a later date to perform the rituals before she can enter the plantation. That on 17/6/2017, the deceased informed him that she was going to meet the Appellant to perform the necessary rituals at the palm plantation and the deceased never came back. That he called the deceased phoneand a man picked and informed him that he should be praying for his sister as she was involved in an accident. That when he asked the man whether he saw the deceased, the Appellant told him that he had not seen the deceased for more than three months, but when PW2 reminded him that he was the one who accompanied the deceased on 11/6/2017 and he (the Appellant) took them on his motorcycle to the palm plantation at Igbobini, he pretended that he saw the deceased barely a week ago but not three months. That they reported the matter at Irele Police Station, and they were thereafter called that a corpse was found in the plantation where the Appellant took them to and the Appellant was arrested.
PW3 OluwafunkeGbede testified that on 22/6/2017, she went to her farm at Igbobini and when she got to the farm she saw a corpse and ran back to report to the Regent of the town and reported the case to the police. That the DPO ordered a Policeman to go with her to the plantation and the corpse was eventually evacuated to the mortuary. PW4, Olufemi Aribiyi Pathologist testified that on 30/6/2017, he performed autopsy on the corpse of one MuboOlowoniyi (the deceased) inthe presence of the mortuary attendant, I.P.O, the deceased husband and her younger brother. That the body was decomposed but recognizable. That there was an entry gunshot wound to the back and an exit wound in the chest where the bullet came out, a high velocity bullet. That apart from entry and exist of bullet, he observed that part of her pubic hairs was shaved because there was a reaction around it. That the gunshot wound must have led to massive blood lost which eventually killed the deceased.
PW5, Owolabi Segun an Inspector of Police testified that a case of missing person was transferred from Irele Police Station to State C.I.D. Akure for investigation. That after investigation, the Appellant was arrested, and he recorded the Appellant’s statement. That the Appellant confessed to him that he directed the deceased to move ahead of him to enter the plantation for the ritual and that when the deceased entered the farm he shot the deceased at her back with one locally made single barrel gun and shaved the deceased pubic hair to use for money rituals with the help of Tokunbo popularly known as Awo. That the Appellant told him that he kept thegun under a bamboo tree closed to where he killed the deceased and the Appellant took the team of detective to the plantation and visited the scene of the crime and recovered the gun under the bamboo tree. That is Exhibit 2 and the Appellant was later arraigned before the lower Court.
The Appellant belatedly denied knowing PW2, denied knowing the deceased, denied being a herbalist and denied going to the plantation with the deceased or anybody. He testified that he only understands Yoruba and his Ishekiri native dialect, but he answered question from Counsel in English and spoke English.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant criticised the medical report Exhibit 1 that it is full of doubt, that the bullet could not have been in the gun after it was fired.
The Law is that where the cause of death is known or could be inferred from the circumstances of evidence adduced or where the death flows is instantaneously on affect or there is an abundant evidence of the manner of death, as in the instant case, medical evidence is rendered Otiose. See Maigari V. State (2017) 13 NWLR (pt. 1384) 339, Galadima V. State (2017) 12 NWLR (pt. 1580) 329, Ogba V. State (1992) 2 SCNJ.In the instant case, apart from Exhibit 1, the medical report, there are other circumstantial evidence which reveal the cause of death of the deceased and link it to the Appellant act.
I agree that there is no direct evidence that the Appellant killed the deceased, but the circumstantial evidence which is evidence of surrounding circumstances shows that the only inference capable of being drawn from the circumstances of this case, as found by the lower Court, is that the Appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. The Appellant is deemed to intend the natural consequences of his act. I so hold.
Circumstantial evidence is often been described as the best evidence when it comes to proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is the evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence, is capable of proving a preposition with the accuracy of mathematics. See Okpako V. State (2018) LPELR 43875 (SC).
The lone issue in this appeal is resolved against the Appellant.
Having resolved the sole issue in this appeal against the Appellant, the appeal lacks merit and deserved the penalty of dismissal. I herebydismiss it. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on 29th April, 2019, convicting and sentencing the Appellant to death by hanging is hereby affirmed.
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the draft of the leading judgment, in this appeal, just delivered by my learned Brother, Ridwan M. Abdullahi, JCA.
I am at one with His Lordship’s line of reasoning and the conclusion reached by him in the said leading judgment that the appeal is unmeritorious. I equally dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential orders made therein.
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.: I read before now and in draft the judgment of my learned brother, RIDWAN M. ABDULLAHI, JCA just delivered. I am in one accord with his Lordship’s reasoning and conclusion therein that this appeal being unmeritorious be dismissed. The Ione issue the appellant distilled as calling for determination and upon which this appeal was determined was:
“Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it held that the respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant the offence of murder andconvicted and sentenced the appellant to death.”
The brief summary of the facts of this case are well set out in the lead judgment. I do not need to repeat them. The comments I seek to make are in respect of circumstantial evidence.
The case of the prosecution in the lower Court was hinged primarily on circumstantial evidence. The apex Court in the case of CHIME IJIOFFOR V THE STATE (2001) 9 NWLR, PT 718, 371 AT 385 had this to say on circumstantial evidence.
“Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undesigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial.
…. Each case depends on its own facts but the one test which such evidence must satisfy is that it should lead to the guilt of the accused person and leave no degree to possibility or chance that other persons could have been responsible for the commission of the offence.”
See also EBENEHI V THE STATE (2009) 6 NWLR, PT. 1138, 431; ABOKOKUYANRO V STATE (2016) LPELR-40107 (SC) and STATE V SUNDAY (2019);IGBIKIS V STATE (2017) LPELR-41667 (SC); DANJUMA V STATE (2019) LPELR-47037 (SC) and PAUL V STATE (2019) LPELR – 47386 (SC).
I carefully perused the record, particularly the judgment of the lower Court. The circumstances of this case lead cogently, strongly and unequivocally to the conclusion that the act, conduct or omission of the accused person caused the death of the deceased person.
In conclusion, there is no faulting the finding of the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant to death by hanging. I dismiss this appeal and affirm the decision of the lower Court.
Appearances:
Fred Onuobia, Esq. For Appellant(s)
G. A. Olowoporoku with him B.V. Falodun and B.B. Olanrewaju. For Respondent(s)
