Esop Sampson Edoho V. The State (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

EKPE, J.C.A. 

The accused person, Esop Sampson Edoho, now appellant was charged on an information with the offence of murder contrary to section 319(1) of the Criminal Code.

The particulars of the offence read:

“Esop Sampson Edoho in the night of 29th July, 1993 at No. 67, Grace Bill Road, Eket, within Eket Judicial Division murdered Iboro Esop Sampson Edoho (M).”

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial was before Idiong, J. at Eket High Court of Akwa Ibom State. At the trial, the prosecution called four witnesses in proof of its case. The appellant gave evidence in his own defence but called no witness.

Learned counsel for both parties also addressed the court. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge delivered a considered judgment on 21/4/97 and found the appellant guilty of murder, convicted him and accordingly sentenced him to death. In convicting the appellant of murder of the deceased, the learned trial Judge had this to say in his judgment at page 67 of the record:

“I am generally satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as required by law and so I find the DW1 (appellant) guilty as charged.”

The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution can be stated thus:

The deceased, Iboro Esop Sampson Edoho, was the son of the appellant and was living with the appellant at the time of the incident leading to his death. He was then aged about twelve years. PW2, Aniebiet Cletus Uko also was living with the deceased and the appellant in the appellant’s house and she was attending school at the time from the house of the appellant who was her mother’s husband. She testified that on 29/7/93 at night time she was reading in the house when the appellant told her that he was going to the church and instructed her to go and sleep whenever she felt sleepy.

The appellant then went out and later returned with the deceased and kept the deceased in his (appellant’s) bedroom and left for the church again. Before that date, the deceased used to sleep in the same bedroom with PW2. According to PW2, the appellant kept the deceased in his own bedroom to prevent the deceased from going out as he used to do. After PW2 had finished reading that night, she went to her bedroom and slept, and as she was sleeping she felt some scratches on her body; she woke up and called the appellant who came and took her outside where she then saw the deceased lying on the ground. She also saw the appellant and the appellant’s visitor who used to supply the appellant with drugs. The appellant then instructed his drug supplier to pour water on her and he did so.

This was done because there was a burning sensation on her right hand which was caused by a substance suspected to be acid. The deceased according to PW2, was rolling on the ground and was unable to talk. PW2 noticed something like liquid on the deceased’s body as he was not wearing any clothes. The appellant went and called his nearby neighbours who came to the scene. The appellant also called a driver who conveyed the deceased to the hospital.

According to PW2, the deceased died because of the acid poured on him by the appellant.

Under cross examination by the learned counsel for the defence, PW2 said that the neighbours who came to the scene were crying and said that the liquid on the deceased’s body was acid. She said that at the time of the incident in 1993 she was in J.S.1 and did not know what an acid was. In answer to a question, PW2 said that the deceased was locked up by the appellant in the appellant’s bedroom that night but he did not cry.

PW1 who was the mother of the deceased and an ex-wife of the appellant was not present at the place and time of the incident and so she could not speak from her knowledge about what happened. However, she told the court that on 29/7/93 at about ten minutes to 1.00 a.m the appellant came to her house and told her that the deceased had poured acid on himself and had been admitted into an hospital. The appellant then took her to the clinic where the deceased had been taken to by the appellant and admitted for treatment. PW 1, on reaching the clinic, saw the deceased with acid burns on his body, she called him but he could not answer. She challenged the appellant that he (the appellant) poured acid on the deceased. She was there until about 3.45a.m when the deceased died in the clinic. She then left for her village and reported the matter to her father and later at the Police Station. The Police came and took the deceased’s corpse to the hospital where autopsy was conducted and she identified the corpse to the Medical Doctor that conducted the autopsy, as that of her son.