Dare Adeleye V. The State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant was charged on a one-count charge of murder contrary to Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code, Cap 30, Laws of Ondo State, 1979 at the High Court of Ondo State, Holden at Oka Judicial Division, Akoko. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. He has appealed to this Court against the conviction and sentence.

The facts of the case as can be gathered from the evidence of the three witnesses called by the prosecution are as follows. The deceased Rotimi Oredusi was the son of Margaret Oredusi (PW1).

On the date of the incident, Solomon Adeleye (PW2) brother of the appellant came to PW1’s house and invited the deceased to the burial ceremony of his late brother in-law. Later that evening, the PW2 returned to PW1’s house and told her that her son Rotimi Oredusi quarreled with the appellant and the appellant killed him.

The matter was reported to the Divisional Police Headquarters Akoko. The case was transferred from there to the State C. I. D Akure, Homicide Section. Sgt. Bola Okunlenu (PW3) and three other police officers were assigned to investigate the case. They visited the scene in the company of the former I.P.O. from Supare Divisional Headquarters. At the scene they recovered one face Cap with blood stain. They visited the hospital and confirmed that the deceased was really dead.

Although the appellant had purportedly made two extra judicial statements in which he said he struck the deceased on the head with a screw driver in one statement and a plug spanner in the other, in the Court he made a u-turn. According to him there was disagreement between him and the deceased. The deceased started to beat him.

He appellant ran to some people standing by for help but the deceased did not heed their advice, instead he started quarrelling with them too saying that the matter was between the two of them and they had no business in it. The deceased started a fight with those people. In the process, the deceased was injured and another person. The two injured people were taken to the hospital where they stayed until the next day.

The next day at about 8.00 a.m. he saw a policeman. The policemen arrested him and took him to the Police Station where he was informed that Rotimi had died.

From the resume of the facts above the respondent called three witnesses while the appellant called none but gave evidence in his defence. The respondent tendered three exhibits, two extra judicial statements of the appellant and a face cap. To prosecute this appeal, the appellant filed a notice of appeal, containing six grounds of appeal from which the following issues for determination were presented:

(i) Whether in the light of the material contradiction in Exhibits A & C, the evidence of the witnesses to the police and at the trial that are hearsay the trial Court was right to have convicted the appellant in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Issue No.1 relates to grounds No. 2 and 3 of the Grounds of Appeal.

(ii) Whether the conviction of the appellant solely on Exhibits A, B & C sufficiently satisfies the legal requirement that the offence of murder be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Issue No.ii relates to ground No 4 of the Grounds of Appeal.

(iii) Whether having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial the learned trial judge gave a judicious consideration of the case of the appellant. Issue No. iii relates to grounds No. 5 and 6 of the grounds of appeal.

The respondent on the other hand distilled the following issues for determination:

(1) Whether in the light of Exhibit A (Appellant’s confessional statement statements dated 23/8/2005) and Exhibit C (Appellant’s confessional statement dated 21/8/2005), the evidence of the witnesses to the police and at the trial, the trial Court was right to have convicted the appellant.