Anselem Agu V. The State (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

At the High Court of Imo State, Iho Ikeduru Judicial Division, the appellant (as accused person) was arraigned on Information which charged him with the offence of murder. Upon his plea of not guilty before the said Court (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the trial Court”), the matter went to trial.

While the Prosecution relied on the testimonies of its seven witnesses in proof of its case, the appellant (as accused person), who did not call any witness, testified in his defence. At the end, being satisfied with the Prosecution’s compelling evidence, the trial Court found him guilty of the said offence contrary to Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code, Cap 30, Vol 11, Laws of Eastern Nigeria. It accordingly, convicted, and sentenced him to death. His appeal to the Court of Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the lower Court’) was unsuccessful; hence, this appeal to this Court.

He distilled two issues from his Notice and Grounds of Appeal of December 6, 2012: issues which were framed in these terms:

1. Whether the Court below is (sic) right in applying the

1

inconsistency rule as resulting in making the appellant’s viva-voce evidence and cautioned statement as both unreliable and therefore held the viva-voce evidence of the appellant as having totally contradicted Exhibit B qua cautioned statement of the appellant

2. Is (sic) the Court below right in holding that their was no legal duty on the Police to investigate the appellant’s plea of self defence and particulars therein furnished for reasons of the existence of eye witness account, denial of the cautioned statement by the appellant and that the viva-voce evidence, totally contradicted the cautioned statement

On their part, the respondent framed the issues thus:

1. Whether the Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant
2. Whether the statement of the appellant, admitted in Court as Exhibit ‘B’ is (sic) not at variance with his testimony in Court and if the answer is in the affirmative, what is the legal position

My Lords, I take the view that, though the issues framed by the respondent are more succinct apropos the appellants main complaint in his Notice and Grounds of Appeal, only the first

2

issue is, truly, determinative of this appeal. Thus, only the sole issue, expressed as the respondent’s first issue would be adopted in the determination of this appeal. In effect, the sole issue for the determination of this appeal is the very commodious one couched thus:

Whether the Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant

Before dealing with this issue, however, a statement of the factual background would not be out of place.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The fateful day was May 2, 1992; the time was between 4 -5pm. The Prosecution’s case was that on the said day and time, PW3 took her bicycle to one Fabian Uqwushie for repair. As she was there, she overheard the deceased person calling on her. She left the repairer to meet her (the deceased person). On her way, she met the deceased person who asked her to go home and prepare for dinner. As she was about to go, she saw the accused person emerging from a track road with a machete.