Olusola Adepetu Vs The State (1998)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNDARE, J.S.C.

This appeal raises the question as to what circumstantial evidence will suffice to ground conviction in a criminal trial, particularly in a murder case.

The appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Oyo State of the Ibadan Judicial Division on a charge that he, on or about the 21st day of November 1990 at Sanyo area along Lagos-Ibadan expressway murdered one lady called Ranti Moradeyo and that he thereby committed an offence contrary to, and punishable under, section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap 30 Laws of Oyo State 1978. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the trial, prosecution called nineteen witnesses in support of its case. Following the overruling by the learned trial Judge of a no case submission made by the defence counsel, the appellant gave evidence and called one other witness in his defence. At the close of the trial and after addresses by learned counsel for both the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge, in a well considered judgment found the case against the appellant proved and convicted him as charged; he was sentenced to death by hanging.

Being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the appellant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal. He has now further appealed to this court upon two original and six additional grounds of appeal. Briefs of arguments were filed and exchanged by the appellant and the respondent. In the appellant’s brief, three issues have been formulated as arising for determination in this appeal. They read as follows:

“1. Whether the mere act of opportunity and the finding of telling of lie/lies by (he appellant without more is a sufficient proof of criminal responsibility under the law.

2. Whether the court below was right in holding that the circumstantial evidence proffered by the prosecution is sufficient enough to ground the appellant’s conviction.
3. Whether the court below was right in holding that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt when the cause of the deceased’s death was not linked to any act of the appellant.”

The three issues for determination as formulated in respondent’s brief are not, in substance, too dissimilar to the above even though differently couched. The three issues raised question, in the main, the quantum or sufficiency of circumstantial evidence upon which the learned trial Judge based the conviction of the appellant. It is not in dispute that there was no direct evidence linking the appellant with the death of the deceased. His conviction was based primarily on circumstantial evidence.

The facts relied on by the prosecution run as follows: the appellant and the deceased were intimate friends. The appellant usually visited the deceased at her place of work at Samonda area along University Road, Ibadan and they were known to have gone out together on a number of times. On 21st November, 1990 the appellant called as usual at the place of work of the deceased; he was accompanied by two other men who later gave evidence at the trial of the appellant as PW6 and PW 7. The three men came in a Peugeot 504 saloon car driven by one of the men (PW6). They picked the deceased who sat at the back with the appellant. PW6 drove the car and came eventually to the appellant’s office where he dropped both the appellant and the deceased and PW7. On dropping the trio, he drove to his own workshop in the Peugeot 504 saloon car. At about 6.30p.m. that evening, the appellant, the deceased and PW7 left the appellant’s office at Adegbayi area of Ibadan and drove in the appellant’s Peugeot 505 saloon car to Mesiogo Restaurant also in Ibadan where the three of them had some drinks. PW 7 left the appellant and the deceased behind in the restaurant and went his own way. The couple, that is, the appellant and the deceased too, later left the restaurant on foot leaving behind the appellant’s Peugeot 505. Three hours after they had left the restaurant at about 10.30p.m. the appellant alone returned to the restaurant and without exchanging words with anyone entered his car and drove off. The deceased was never seen alive again.

On 22/11/90 the deceased did not turn up for work at her work place. Her co-workers waited in vain for her. At about 2.00p.m. the appellant called at the place of work and asked from one of the deceased’s co-workers (PW 1) about the deceased. PW l told the appellant that it was he who took away the deceased the previous day and she had not been seen since then. The appellant gave no reply but went his way. On 23/11/90, he came to PW 1 at the place of work and informed PW 1, that the deceased had been killed. On further inquiry by PW 1, the appellant informed him and the other co-workers that the corpse of the deceased had been deposited at the Adeoyo State Hospital mortuary .

The medical report issued following the post mortem examination on the corpse of the deceased showed that the deceased died of head injury consistent with one caused by being hit on the head by a sharp object and also that all the lacerations found on the body were caused by a sharp object.

The defence was a denial of responsibility for the death of the deceased. The appellant in his evidence in court at the trial admitted that on 21/11/90 he was driven by PW6 in a car other than his (appellant’s) car and that the deceased met him at an arranged place at 5.00 p.m. that day. On arrival the deceased told him that she wanted to go to Challenge area (in Ibadan) to collect her money from one Nike Adebambo Ishola (PW 13). He gave the following account in his evidence:

“I told her that my car was not in good condition and that I would not be able to carry her to Challenge. We later left for Secretariat Round-about where the deceased dropped from the car. She took a bus in our presence on her way to Challenge. We later left for my office. Myself, Rotimi Jegede and Tajudeen Yinusa later left in the car for my office.”

He denied being at Mesiogo Restaurant on 21/11/90. He said it was on 20/11/90 that he called at the restaurant with the deceased and his other friends, that is, PW6 and P’W7. He gave the following account of his movement on 20/11/90:

“On 20/11/90, I invited Tajudeen Yinusa, the 6th PW, to carry me and Alakodi, the 7th PW, to Agbowo area. He later carried us in the Peugeot 504 saloon No. KN 705 BC.

It was on the same 20/11/90 that Tajudeen Yinusa carried me, Alakodi and Moses Egba to a village behind I.I.T.A, Ibadan.