Anthony Ugwu Vs The State (1973)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.
The accused, who will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant, was tried at the Enugu High Court of the offence of unlawfully killing one Eze Ochi, hereinafter referred to as the deceased. The offence was committed at Nkalagu Amala, Nsukka on the 14th of October, 1970.
At the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted of the offence of murder and sentenced to death by Phil-Ebosie on 12th January, 1972. The appeal lodged by the appellant against the conviction was heard in this court on the 19th of October, 1972 and was dismissed. We now give our reasons for dismissing the appeal. The appellant admitted killing the deceased.
The case for the prosecution was that during a party in the village on the material day, a scuffle ensued between the deceased and the appellant’s father. The latter sustained an injury on the leg. After the deceased and the appellant’s father had been separated, the former left the party for his house. The appellant although at the party, did not witness the scuffle between the deceased and his father. He saw his father with the injury on the leg as a result of what he was told, the appellant pursued the deceased.
He was armed with a matchet. According to the only eye-witness, a son of the deceased, the appellant on catching up with the deceased, and without any cause whatsoever, struck the deceased with his matchet and inflicted several matchet wounds on him until he died. After killing the deceased, the appellant left the scene. The defence of the appellant was that he followed the deceased to ask him for his reason for the injury inflicted on his father. When he caught up with the deceased and questioned him, the reaction of the deceased was to shoot him with an arrow. He left the deceased and came to report to his – appellant’s father. His father retorted that the deceased meant to do them harm.
On this note, the appellant went to his house, armed himself with a marchet and went after the deceased. He met him at the same place where he previously met him. The deceased on seeing him, aimed his arrow at him. The arrow injured him on his chest. He overpowered the deceased and “stabbed” him all over his body with his matchet until the deceased died.
He then collected the bow and arrow of the deceased and went back to the party where he reported what he had done to the deceased. He later reported to the Police. He produced a hospital card as to the evidence of the treatment he received. The prosecution also led evidence however to show that the deceased did not carry any arrow and bow on the material date and that on a search of his – deceased’s apartment, his arrow and bow were found hanging inside the room.
The learned trial judge considered the evidence of the only eye-witness of the incident. He rejected the evidence of the appellant about the injury inflicted on him by an arrow shot at his chest allegedly by the deceased. He also rejected the second alleged attempt to shoot an arrow at him.
Apart from the appellant who gave evidence in his defence, neither his “injured” father nor any other person at the party was called to give evidence. Mr. Bashua, learned counsel for the appellant, had nothing useful to urge on behalf of the appellant. The learned trial judge had considered the defence of the appellant and gave reasons why it was rejected.
He also considered the defence of provocation, self defence and intoxication, and concluded that none of the defence was made out. We have ourselves considered the evidence as recorded and the findings of the learned trial judge. We are satisfied that there was no justification for interfering with the verdict.
For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed.
Other Citation: (1973) LCN/1743(SC)