Asuquo Okon Asuquo V. The State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

At the High Court of Cross River State, Calabar Judicial Division, the appellant in this appeal [as accused person] was charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code Law, Cap C16, Vol 3, Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria. He was alleged to have killed one Andong Bassey Andong (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased person”) on August 21, 2006, by inflicting machete cuts on him.

In proof of its case, the prosecution called four witnesses, PW1; PW2; PW3 and PW4. Exhibits 1 [Negatives]; 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D (four photographs of the corpse of the deceased person); 3 [Medical Report]; 4 [appellant’s statement at the Odukpani Police Station] and 5 [appellant’s statement at the State Criminal Investigation Department [CID] were tendered through the PW4. On his part, only the appellant testified in his defence.

In its well-considered judgment, the court (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the lower court”) found him guilty of the murder of the deceased person. The lower court, accordingly, sentenced him to death by hanging. This appeal is his expression of grievance against his conviction and sentence. He formulated only one issue from his grounds of appeal. It was framed thus:

Whether the respondent proved the charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

The respondent adopted this sole issue. We, too, shall adopt it in the determination of this appeal. Before then, however, we shall set out the factual background to this appeal.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At the lower court, the respondent made the case that the appellant killed the deceased person, his uncle, by name, Andong Bassey Andong, on or about August 21, 2006, by inflicting machete cuts on him. In his lifetime, the said deceased person lived in a house that shared a common boundary with the appellant’s family house.

When a dispute ensued as to the exact demarcations of the boundary of the said land, at the instance of the parties, the village council intervened. Unfortunately, the decision of the said council precipitated further animosities between the disputants, namely, the appellant’s sister and the deceased person.

It was alleged that on August 21, 2006, at about 7 am, the appellant, armed with a machete, proceeded to the deceased person’s house. Thereat, he, allegedly, raised the said machete in a bid to deal some blows on the deceased person. While the latter ran for dear life, the former chased him, menacingly. The PW2 (wife of the deceased person), expectedly, ran after them.

Unfortunately, just a distance away from their house, the deceased person fell down. The appellant, then, vented his spleen on him by administering machete cuts on him.

The prosecution, further, made the case that the said PW2 held the appellant by his waist, imploring him to spare the deceased person’s life. The furious appellant, nevertheless, dealt machete cuts on the deceased person. The latter was taken to the hospital where his death was confirmed, exhibit 3. The PW1 testified to the effect that, on that fateful morning, PW2 [wife of the deceased person] ran to his house.

She narrated to him how the appellant attacked the deceased person and inflicted machete cuts on him.

He, promptly, accompanied her to the gory scene where he beheld the deceased person on the ground in a pool of his own blood. There were signs of several machete cuts on him, exhibits 1, 2A and 2D. On their arrival at the hospital, he was certified dead. These, then, were the sequence of events that prompted the charge against the appellant: a charge that culminated in his conviction and sentence. As noted above, the appellant set out a sole issue for the determination of his appeal, thus: