Dickson Moses V. The State (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

Adekeye, J.C.A. 

In a criminal charge preferred against Dickson Moses, then the accused person – now appellant, before this court, the information filed at the High Court of Justice Ogun State, Ijebu-Ode Judicial Division reads without the particulars as follows: –

“Statement of Offence 1st Count –

Causing death by dangerous driving contrary to and punishable under section 4 of the Federal Highway Act (NO 4 of 1971).

Statement of Offence 2nd Count –

Dangerous Driving contrary to and punishable under section 5(1) of the Federal Highway Act 1971 (NO 4 of 1971)”.

The background to this case is that on the 23/1/90 the appellant drove the vehicle – a Mercedes Benz Petrol Tanker with registration number OY 1758 LE at Oke-Owa along old Ondo-Benin-Ijebu-Ode and had a head-on collision with another vehicle, a Volkswagen Beetle with registration number OGLG 48 J then driven by one Olufemi Adetola who died instantly. The appellant was charged before the High Court Ijebu-Ode with causing the death of the deceased by his dangerous mode of driving at the time of the accident. During trial of the case the prosecution called six witnesses and tendered four exhibits. The appellant pleaded not guilty before the trial court, gave evidence in his own defence and did not call any witness.

The learned trial judge in a considered judgment delivered on the 29th of October 1992 found the appellant guilty and convicted him on Count one – that is causing death by dangerous driving – while staying further proceedings on count two – the charge of dangerous driving. The appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned trial judge the appellant filed notice of appeal in this court. The appellant originally filed four grounds of appeal. He was granted leave to amend his grounds of appeal by order of this court made on the 1st of July 1999. He filed seven grounds of appeal by his amended notice. Parties settled records and exchanged briefs. In the appellant’s brief of argument filed on 22/2/2000 three issues;

were settled for determination as follows .-

1. Whether the reliance placed by the learned trial judge on the rough sketch drawing was fit and proper in view of the inadequacies in the sketch drawing as compared with the evidence of PW5and the accused/appellant.
2. Whether the lower court gave proper consideration to the defence of the appellant before proceeding to convict him.
3. Whether all things considered the prosecution’s case was proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.

The respondent, on considering the amended grounds of appeal submitted two issues for determination as follows:-

1. Whether the learned trial judge was not right to have relied on Exhibit 3 when the said Exhibit was supported by other facts proved by the prosecution in the case.
2. Whether or not the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt at the trial.

I shall adopt the three issues settled by the appellant for the purpose of this appeal.

Issue No One.

The appellant attacked the rough sketch of the scene which was tendered and accepted by consent of both parties as “Exhibit 3”, the sketch which revealed the resultant position of the vehicles after the collision. The sketch and the evidence of PW5 did not help the case of the prosecution – as they only created confusion Vide page 17 lines 19-25. The appellant saw the sketch as a bundle of confusion – as the broken lines cannot depict the middle of the road. The skid marks to the point of impact of each vehicle was not clearly indicated. The inadequacies of the sketch include –