Blessing Ifiok Edet V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant in this criminal appeal was arraigned before the High Court of the Itu Judicial Division of Akwa Ibom State presided over by Godwin Abraham, J, on an information of two count charge of wounding with Intent, contrary to Section 341(1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 38 Volume 2, Laws of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, 2000 and Grievous Harm contrary to Section 344 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 38, Volume 2, Laws of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, 2000.

The prosecution’s case against the Appellant was that on 29/12/2010 at No. 13 Enen Afaha Road, Itam, Itu Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State, she bit off the right Ear of Edidiong Francis Edet (PW2) at the trial Court, chewed and swallowed it.

On the said 29/12/2010, at about 6.am, Edidiong Francis Edet went to ease herself in a toilet behind their house at No. 13 Enen Afaha Road, Itam Itu. On her way back from the toilet, she saw the Appellant who started raining abuses on her, called her a prostitute who had contacted disease in the process and has also messed up the toilet without cleaning same. All these the

1

PW2 reported to her own mother Mrs. Nseobong Francis Edet. Her mother advised her to ignore the Appellant. The Appellant was said to have slapped PW2’s mother boasting that PW2 was not capable of doing anything. An attempt by PW2’s mother to retaliate was prevented by PW2 who quickly rushed to stop her mother.

At that point, the Appellant got hold of PW2’s hair at that same moment PW2 was said to have felt a very sharp pain on her right ear and discovered that the Appellant had bit off her right ear completely. PW2 showed the pinna of the ear to the trial Court which the Court noted that it was detached completely. The Appellant was said to have admitted in her statement to the police that she swallowed part of the ear she bit off and told the victim PW2 that she did so to prevent PW2 getting married.

The Appellant’s husband was said to have told the PW2 to thank God that his wife did not kill her. The I.P.O (PW3) arranged and took photographs of the right ear of PW2 which was tendered as Exhibits 3A and 3B while the Appellant’s statement to the police was admitted as Exhibit 2.

?

The defence of the Appellant was that PW2 allegedly sustained the injury

2

when she rushed to separate her mother and the Appellant. That the police concluded their investigation speedily by arresting the Appellant same day. That all the statements were recorded the same date of the incident i.e. 29/12/2010 and the police investigation report was written the following day the 30/12/2010.

At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge in his judgment believed the case of the prosecution and disbelieved the case presented by the Appellant. He discharged the Appellant on Count One for Intention to disfigure under Section 341(1) and convicted and sentenced her for causing Grievous Harm under Section 344 of the Criminal Code.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with that judgment has brought the present appeal. Three Grounds of Appeal were filed from which counsel for the Appellant P. Anselem Eyo Esq distilled three issues for determination namely: