Sunday Baridam V. The State (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IGUH, J.S.C

The appellant, Sunday Baridam, was on the 21st day of July, 1986 arraigned before the high court of Rivers State, holden at the Bori, charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 319 of the Criminal Code. The particulars of the offence charged are as follows:-

“That you, Sunday Baridam, on the 29th day of July, 1984 at Bionu Village in the Bori judicial Division; murdered Mayii Topie”.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge; and the trial proceeded.

The prosecution called five witnesses at the trial. The appellant testified in his own defence but called no witnesses.

The substance of the case as presented by the prosecution is that the appellant under the pre that his motor cycle had broken down went to the house of P.W.2, Doctor Gbarade, a motor cycle mechanic on the 29th July, 1984 at about 8.00 p.m and invited him out to repair it. Unsuspectingly, p.w.2 assembled his tools and followed the appellant. Some 200 yards from the house of P.W.2, the appellant accused him of befriending the appellant’s girl friend. P.W.2, manhandled him and slapped his face. Inspite of the denial, the appellant further stabbed p.w.2, in his chest with a knife whereupon p.w.2, raised an alarm which attracted the attention of his deceased sister, Mayii Topie. As soon as the deceased rushed out to see what was happening, the appellant turned on her and stabbed her also in the chest and ran away. P.W.2, thereafter, fell down unconscious but the deceased died on the spot.

The matter was reported to the police.

The appellant in his own defence denied stabbing or killing the deceased. He also denied stabbing P.W.2 or any other person. He never went to the house P.W.2 on the material date nor did he invite P.W.2 to repair his motor cycle. He did not even see the deceased on the fateful day. According to the appellant, he was riding his bicycle to Bionu village to see his girl friend at about 8.00 p.m. on the material date. On the way at a round-about, he ran into a crowd that neither dispersed nor gave him free passage even though he ran his bell. The crowd asked whom he was. He called his name but they retorted by saying he had come again to carry his girl friend. The crowd attacked and stabbed him with a dagger. In the course of beating him he pulled out his pen knife. P.W.2 tried to recover the knife from him but was injured in the process. The appellant escaped to the police station to make a report. He was at the station when P.W.3 came to report the incident.

The learned trial judge, Ichoku, J. after a meticulous and painstaking review of the evidence on the 11th April, 1988 found the appellant guilty of murder as charged. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

Dissatisfied with this judgment of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, against his conviction and sentence. On the 25th January, 1991 the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed en the appellant by the trial court. It is against that judgment or the lower court that the appellant has now further appealed to this court.

The appellant filed only one original ground of appeal. This was on the 22nd February, 1991 and it reads as follows:-

“That my sentence and conviction by the Hon. High Court judge and confirmed by the Hon. Justices of the Court of Appeal are altogether unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported in law, having regard to the weight of evidence.”

It has been laid down repeatedly that a ground of appeal which complains that the decision of the lower court is “altogether unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of the evidence”, is not a valid or proper ground of appeal in criminal cases where the required onus of proof on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. What an appellant appealing against his conviction on the facts in a criminal case is required under the law to allege is that the verdict is altogether unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. See Samuel Aladesuru and others v. The Queen (1955) 3 W.L.R. 515, Akanbi Enitan and others v. The State (1986) 3 N.W.L.R (pt.30) 604 at 608 and Wan key v. The state (1993) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt.295) 542 at 551. It is therefore clear that the above original ground of appeal filed by the appellant is erroneous on point of law and patently incompetent.

The appellant, however, subsequently obtained the leave of this court to file and argue five additional grounds of appeal. These were duly filed pursuant to the order of court.