Chidi Edwin V. The State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of Hon. O. D. Akeredolu J. Sitting at Akure Judicial Division of Ondo State High Court, delivered on 17th July, 2013 in charge No. AK/23c/2012.

At the trial court, the Appellant herein was charged with the murder of one Happiness Ndubueze by striking her with matchete on or about the 28th day of April, 2011 at Wasimi Via Bolorunduro, in the Ondo Judicial Division contrary to Section 316 and punishable under Section 319 of the Criminal Code cap 11, Laws of Ondo State, 1978.

The case for the prosecution (herein the Respondent) is that the accused person (herein the Appellant) on or about the 28th April, 2011 murdered one Happiness Ndubueze by striking her with matchete. The Appellant on his part denied doing same.

In proof of its case, the prosecution called two witnesses and tendered Exhibits. While the Appellant alone testified in his defence. It was the case of the prosecution that the Appellant matcheted the deceased with cutlass to cut her leg, hand and back several times when she came out from where she eased herself at a nearby camp at Wasimi until when he saw that the deceased fell down in the pool of her blood and could not talk he took to his heel into the bush and left her there. The deceased was later taken to Hospital by a police officer and died after some days at the Hospital as a result of the several matchete cuts inflicted on her by the Appellant.

The Appellant, on his part, denied doing same. He claimed that on the said day, he was coming from a farm given to him by one Femi Babatunde to brush at about 7am and left the farm about 3p.m, in other words, he was not at the locus criminis and could not have been responsible for the death of the deceased. In a considered judgment delivered on the 17th July, 2013 the learned trial judge found the Appellant guilty of murder as charged and accordingly sentenced him to death by hanging.

Being dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence to death, the Appellant has appealed vide his Notice of Appeal dated 22/7/2013 and filed on the 12th day of December, 2013.

The Appellant, through his Counsel filed an Amended Notice of Appeal dated 24/1/2014 and filed on 31/1/2014 containing five (5) grounds of appeal from which three (3) issues were distilled for the determination of this appeal, to wit:

1. Whether in view of the evidence led at the trial by the parties, the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. (Grounds 3 and 5 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether in view of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing, the trial court was right in proceeding to sentence the Appellant to death after conviction without affording him right of allocutus.

(Ground 4 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).

3. Whether the learned trial judge in his judgment properly evaluated the evidence led and defence put up before reaching his decision to convict the Appellant of the offence of murder and thereafter sentenced him to death by hanging. (Grounds 1 and 2 of the Amended Notice of Appeal).

On the part of the Respondent, Learned Counsel formulated the following three (3) issues for the determination of this appeal:

1. Whether in view of the evidence led at the trial by the parties, the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether in view of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing, the trial court was right in proceeding to sentence the Appellant to death after conviction without affording him right of allocutus,
3. Whether the learned trial judge in his judgment properly evaluated the evidence adduced and defence put up by the accused before convicting the Appellant of the offence of murder and thereafter sentencing to death by hanging.

I have looked at the issues distilled by both Counsel and I am of the view that inspite of their similarities, that those raised by the Counsel for the Appellant would do justice to this appeal. I am therefore adopting the issues as raised by the Appellant for the determination of the appeal.

ARGUMENT ON ISSUE NUMBER ONE (1)

Whether in view of the evidence at the trial by the parties, the prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. (Ground 3 and of the Amended Notice of Appeal)

Learned Counsel for the Appellant avers that this issue arises from Grounds 3 and 5 of the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on the 31st day of January, 2014.