Victor Onyeamechi Okoh V The State (2016)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Benin Judicial Division, the Lower Court, delivered on the 28th day of June, 2013 affirming the appellant’s conviction and sentence by the Delta State High Court the trial Court, for the murder of his wife, Patricia Okoh.

The appellant was arraigned at the Trial Court on a one count charge of murder, punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code CAP 48 Vol. II, Laws of the defunct Bendel State, 1976 applicable to Delta State. In the Count, he is alleged to have murdered Patricia Ohoh, his wife, on the 17th day of February, 2010 at Idumbiri Farm Road within Owa Oyibu Judicial Division of the Trial Court. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial at the conclusion of which he was convicted as charged. Dissatisfied, he appealed to the Lower Court which found no merit in the appeal, dismissed same and affirmed the trial Court’s judgment. Still aggrieved, the appellant has further appealed to this Court on a Notice containing four grounds of appeal filed on 24th July, 2013.

With

1

the withdrawal of his second issue and its being struck-out, the lone issue abiding for the determination of the appeal distilled in the appellant’s brief settled by Ekemejero Ohworvoriole Esq, reads:-

“Whether the Lower Court was right when it affirmed the trial Court’s decision that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the evidence adduced before the Court”

A similar issue has been distilled in the respondent’s brief settled by Enenmo, D.F, a Deputy Director in the Delta State Ministry of Justice. Appellant’s lone issue will inform the determination of his appeal.

On the issue, learned appellant’s counsel submits that the respondent has not discharged the burden the law places on it. It is not enough for the respondent to prove the death of the deceased. The respondent, it is contended, must further prove the fact that the death ensued from the act of the appellant done with either the intention of causing the death of the deceased or grievous bodily harm to his victim. The two Courts,it is argued, relied on circumstantial evidence, inferred from Exhibit P2 only, the purported confessional

2

statement of the appellant. Outside Exhibit P2, it is submitted, the respondent led no evidence to establish that the content of the purported confessional statement is probable and reliable- Relying on State v. Ogbubunjo (2001) NWLR (Pt. 698) 576, Millar v. State (2005) 8 NWLR (pt. 927) 236 at 252 and Ogidi v. State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.918) 28 at 319, learned appellant’s counsel submits that the two Courts have erred in their reliance on the scanty evidence on record to convict the appellant. Further relying on the case of Uwakeweghunya v. State (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 930) 227 at 249 250 and Akang v. State (1971) 1 ALL NLR 46, learned counsel contends that the appellant who, from the content of Exhibit P2, was provoked by the deceased, is not guilty of murder but manslaughter. The non-consideration of the defence, by the two Courts, it is contended is fatal to their decisions. On the whole, learned counsel concludes, the issue on being resolved in appellant’s favour, the appeal as well should be allowed.

Responding, learned respondent’s counsel submits that the appellant is rightly convicted on his

3

confessional statement alone. The said statement, counsel argues, being cogent, positive and direct does not require any corroboration to enable reliance on it. In any event, beside the confessional statement, Exhibit P2, evidence abound corroborating the content of the confessional statement. The evidence of PW2 and PW3, it is submitted, provide this material corroboration. Citing the decisions in Egboghonome v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 385, Alarape v. State (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 705) 79 and Edamine v. State (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt.438) 530 at 536, learned counsel urges that this Court has no cause to disturb the concurrent findings of the two Courts below that have not been shown to be perverse.