Ifeanyi Ukonu Obi V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

The Appellant, IFEANYI UKONU OBI was arraigned before the High Court of IMO STATE, OKIGWE JUDICIAL DIVISION (HON. JUSTICE P. C. IKPEAMA on the 6th day of July 2011 when his plea on one Count Information was taken.
The said one Count Information reads as follows:
?STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
CAUSING GRIEVOUS HARM Contrary to Section 332(a) of the Criminal Code Cap 30 Vol. II, Laws of Eastern Nigeria 1963 as applicable to Imo State.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
IFEANYI UKONU OBI on the 18th day of May, 2007 at Amaorji, Ofoacharawo, Okigwe in the Okigwe JUDICIAL DIVISION maimed ABUCHI EJIMKONYE by cutting off his two wrists with Matchet and made away with them.?
The Appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to the one Count Charge and his trial commenced. The prosecution called three witnesses while the Appellant testified in his own behalf.

At the conclusion of evidence, the Learned Counsel to the prosecution adopted his address. It must however be noted that the Learned Counsel to the Prosecution S. C. Osuoha Esq., ACSC, on 20th day of June, 2012 applied to

1

amend the charge against the Appellant pertaining to the Section of the Criminal Code under which the proceeding was initiated. The said Learned Counsel applied to amend Section 332(a) of the Criminal Code to read Section 332(1) of the Criminal Code. The Appellant as the Accused did not object to the amendment of the Charge as aforesaid.

The plea of the Accused as required under the Criminal Procedure Law was re-taken and the Appellant pleaded NOT guilty to the charge as amended. That same day that is 20th day of June, 2012, the Learned trial Judge gave considered judgment in the matter and found the Appellant guilty as charged. The trial Judge said among other things:
?The defence of the accused is alibi. This defence cannot avail the accused because the PW1 sufficiently fixed him at the scene of crime and the defence of alibi is negative. I believe the PW2 that the accused made Exhibit ?A? which gave account of what he did and why he did it. The accused impressed me as a most untruthful witness who is prepared to say anything to free himself.
I do not believe his afterthought evidence in Court which is concocted. I believe

2

what he said in Exhibit ?A? and on his confession and the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3. The Prosecution has proved the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt and I find him guilty as charged.
ALLOCUTUS: The accused pleads for leniency. The Prosecutor says he has no facts of previous conviction.
COURT: The accused shall go to prison for 30 years with hard labour.?

The Appellant was aggrieved by the findings and sentence inflicted upon him and he filed his Notice of Appeal dated 18th day of February, 2014 on the same date pursuant to the Leave of this Court granted on 17th day of February, 2014. The said Notice of Appeal contained four grounds of appeal as follows:
?GROUNDS OF APPEAL
(i) GROUND ONE
The Learned trial Judge erred in Law when he held that the prosecution has proved the charge against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thereby convicted and sentenced the Appellant to Thirty (30) years imprisonment with hard labour.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The PW1 is a child of tender years whose evidence ought to be corroborated by independent evidence before being relied upon by the trial

3

Court.
(b) The trial Court relied on the evidence of PW1 which was not corroborated to enter a verdict of guilty against the Appellant and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.
(c) The evidence of the PW2 and PW3 are all hearsay evidence and cannot corroborate the testimony of PW1. The evidence was therefore inadmissible and contrary to Sections 37 and 38 of the Evidence Act 2011 and ought not to have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge.
(d) The purported confessional statement tendered by PW2 was disputed by the Appellant.
(e) The learned trial Court failed to conduct a trial within a trial to ascertain the true position with the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant which was disputed by the Appellant and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.
(f) There was no proper examination and evaluation of the evidence of the prosecution to satisfy the required standard of proof before conviction.
(g) The trial Court believed the testimony of PW1 without duly satisfying itself as to the requirements of the law as stated in the case of Asuquo Eyo Okon & Ors. Vs.

4

The State (1988) 3 SC. (PART 1) 140, before accepting the evidence of PW1 who is a child of tender years thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.
(h) The totality of the evidence of the trial Court raised huge doubt which ought to have been resolved in favour of the Appellant.

GROUND TWO
The trial Court erred in Law when it found as follows:
?The defence of the accused is alibi. This defence cannot avail the accused because PW1 sufficiently fixed him at the scene of crime and the defence of alibi is negative.?, and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The Appellant raised the defence of alibi.
(b) The prosecution did not properly investigate the defence of alibi raised by the Appellant as required under the law and did not lead evidence to disprove the defence.
(c) The trial Court relied heavily on the testimony of PW1 in disregarding the defence of alibi raised, which testimony is uncorroborated and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.
(d) The trial Court ought to have made a proper finding on