Daniel Sugh V. The State (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

B. WALI, J.S.C.

The appellant was charged in the trial court with the following offence -“That you Daniel Iyorvershima Sugh, on or about the 17th day of October, 1984 along Makurdi-Gboko Road in Makurdi town within the Benue State Judicial Division did commit Culpable Homicide punishable with death in that you caused the death of one Robert William Carr by doing an act to wit: you stabbed the said Robert William Carr with a matchet on the left lateral side of his neck with the knowledge that his death would be the probable consequence of your act and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code.”

The 2nd Accused, Michael Ba’aki who was charged with abetting the commission of the offence the appellant was charged with, was acquitted and discharged by the trial court for want of evidence.

The pathetic facts of the incident culminating in the cold and unprovoked murder of the deceased are narrated by the prosecution as follows:-

The appellant at the time of the incident was an engineer serving under Benue State Water Corporation, Makurdi. He befriended a lady by name Lourdes Paugillinam Orig, a Phillipino citizen, who was a teacher at Tilley Gyado College, Makurdi. She was P.W.3 at the trial. P.W.3 was also befriended by Robert William Carr, the expatriate General Manager of Gyado Fruit Co. (Nig.) Ltd., Makurdi, now deceased. Both the appellant and the deceased are married but none of them was living with his wife at the time of the incident. P.W.3 was co-habiting with the appellant in Makurdi. She is also married but left her husband in the Phillipines while coming to Nigeria.

On 7th October 1984 the appellant, in company of P.W.3 went to the deceased’s house in an attempt to resolve the issue as to who between the two of them, P.W.3 would exclusively follow. Neither the appellant nor the deceased was prepared to compromise. Then on 17th October, 1984, P.W.3 went to visit the deceased in his office. The deceased invited her to his house.

The deceased and P.W.3 joined the company’s bus No.BN 6937 NA being driven at the time by P.W.4. With them in the Bus were P.W.1 and P.W.5. They were forced to stop by the appellant who was then driving in his Volvo car No.BN 5 E. No sooner had they stopped the appellant emerged from the Volvo car carrying a cutlass and attacked the deceased on the neck below the jaw on the left side. The appellant then dragged P.W.3 out of the bus, put her in his car and drove away. The deceased was rushed to the General Hospital, Makurdi, where he was certified dead.

The prosecution called fourteen witnesses. Witnesses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 were led in evidence by the prosecution, while witnesses 11 and 12 were tendered for cross-examination by the defence. The appellant testified in his own defence and called one witness. Learned counsel for both the appellant and the prosecution filed written addresses, which they orally elaborated upon. The learned trial Judge, after a thorough examination of the evidence adduced, discharged the 2nd accused for want of evidence.

As regards the 1st accused, now the appellant, he made the following findings:

1. “The charge against the 1st accused is clear enough and does not require any argument. It follows therefore that the argument of the learned counsel for the accused persons on the question of amendment of the charge is totally irrelevant.”

xxx xxx xxx

2. “I have considered very carefully the arguments advanced before me in favour of the 1st accused and also for the prosecution, and I find as a fact that it was the 1st accused who cut the deceased with a cutlass on his neck and caused his death. I believe the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, P.W.5, who were eye witnesses of the event. I am unable to see any material contradictions in their evidence. P.W.1 and P.W.4 testified that the cut was done while the deceased was still in the bus (which I believe) while P.W.5 said he was cut outside the bus. These witnesses said somebody drove the 1st accused to the spot but I find as a fact that he drove himself as he also testified. Even though P.Ws. 4 and 5 ran away when the 1st accused came out with a cutlass and they tried to stop him and he resisted them, they did not go so far away that they could not see what was happening. These minor discrepancies in the case for the prosecution did not in any way discredit the case for the State.”

xxx xxx xxx

3. “I do not believe the evidence of the 1st accused that it was while he was trying to drag out P. W.3 and the deceased was also dragging her that P.W.5 mistakenly cut the deceased with a cutlass. If that story were true the 1st accused would certainly have said so in his statement to the police which was his first opportunity to explain what happened. He simply reserved his statement until he had seen his Lawyer. I find as a fact that he was the only one with a cutlass during the incident. If P.W.5 had a cutlass he would have used it to stop the 1st accused from coming near the deceased to attack him. The evidence is that P.W.5 used only a baton and ran away when the 1st accused tried to cut him with the cutlass.”

xx x xxx

4. “As to whether or not the cutlass Exhibit 7 was the instrument used in committing the offence I believe the evidence of P.W.10 that the 1st accused gave him that cutlass to keep in the afternoon of the incident. While there is no evidence of the exact time the cutlass was given to the witness, he said that it was after he closed from the office at 3 p.m. From the circumstantial evidence I find as a fact that it was after the incidence that the 1st accused gave the cutlass to P.W.10 to keep. I looked at the witness closely in the witness box and I am of the view that in spite of the fact that he too was arrested in connection with the case, he told me the truth in court and there was no cause why he should tell lies against the 1st accused who was his superior officer in the Benue State Water Corporation.

In any event, whether the Exhibit 7 was the instrument used or not there is no doubt in my mind that the accused used a cutlass to deal a deadly blow on the deceased and he died shortly after. I reject the evidence of D.W.1 that a man with a cutlass was standing near the deceased when he arrived at the scene. He impressed me as a man trying to help a friend out of an ugly situation. If anything, his evidence tended to support the case of the prosecution that the 1st accused committed the offence and was in a hurry to get away with P.W.3.

In summary, the prosecution has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st accused committed culpable homicide punishable with death by killing the deceased William Robert Carr and I find him guilty of the offence punishable under S.221(b) of the Penal Code and convict him accordingly.”