Godwin I. Usen V. The State (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant was charged before and convicted by the Cross River State High Court sitting at Calabar for the offence of murder punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. C16, Vol. 111, Laws of Cross River State 2004. The charge was as follows:

“That you Godwin Ibanga Usen ‘m’ on the 2nd day of June, 2007 at No.45 Jebs road, Calabar in the Calabar Magisterial District did unlawfully killed one Juliet Godwin Usen ‘f’ by cutting her with a matchet and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap. C16 Vol. III Laws of the Cross River State of Nigeria, 2004.”

The facts from which the charge arose as contained in the record of appeal are that the Appellant had sharpened a matchet on the 1/6/07 which he later in the night of the same day and early hours of the following day, used and inflicted several injuries on his wife, one Juliet G. Usen with whom he slept in the same bed and she died on the spot.

Dissatisfied with his conviction and death sentence by the High Court, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal containing three (3) grounds of dissatisfaction against the decision on the 14/2/11.

For a full appreciation of the plenitude of the complaint against the decision of the High Court, it is expedient to set out the entire grounds as contained in the notice of appeal. They are thus:-

GROUND ONE:

The learned trial judge erred in law when he convicted the accused even when the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

1. To sustain a conviction on murder charge, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Idiok v. State (2008) 4 KLR (pt.252) p.1589.
2. The prosecution failed to meet the required standard expected in criminal trials, yet the trial court convicted the accused on mere assumption of guilt.
3. Kalu another suspect who was alleged to have sharpened the matchet allegedly used by the accused to commit the crime was never called as a witness.
4. The blood stained matchet was not subjected to any forensic test as to link the blood to that of the deceased.
5. There was no evidence to show how the police were invited to the scene of the alleged crime.

GROUND TWO:

The learned trial judge erred in law when he admitted in evidence, evidence which is inadmissible in law.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR:

1. The accused denied making Exhibit ‘4A’ & ‘4B’ to the police.
2. The trial Judge failed to properly evaluate these exhibits as to warrant their admission or otherwise.

GROUND THREE:

The learned trial judge erred in law when he convicted the accused on evidence materially contradictory and unsupportive of the prosecution case.