Isonguyo v. State (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Benin Division or Court below or lower Court, delivered on the 26th day of March, 2020.

The Court below affirmed the judgment and all the findings of the trial High Court. The Court below had its panel made up of Samuel Chukwudumebi Oseji, JCA (as then was), Aseimo Abraham Adumein and Biobele Abraham Georgewill JJCA.

At the hearing on the 13th January, 2022, learned counsel for the appellant E.O. Afolabi Esq adopted the brief of argument filed on 17/7/2020 and deemed filed on 24/9/2020 and a Reply brief filed on 12/10/2021 and deemed filed on 13/1/2022. He distilled four issues for determination, viz:

1. Having regard to the settled principles of law to the effect that a confessional statement of a co-accused person cannot be used against another co-accused person in finding the said co-accused guilty, whether the Court of Appeal Justices were right when they held that the confession of the first accused person is binding on the Appellant who denied the allegation of murder in her extrajudicial statement to the police and in open Court coupled with the crucial fact that the first accused person who made the said confessional statement never gave any incriminating evidence against the Appellant in open Court when he testified. ARISING FROM GROUND ONE OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL.
2. Having regard to the critical and fundamental ingredients of murder which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right to hold that the prosecution proved the charge of murder against the Appellant. ARISING FROM GROUNDS TWO AND THREE OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL.
3. Having regard to the golden established principle of law to the effect that the defence of an accused person must be considered and having regard to the basic principle of law that both the evidence for and against an accused person must be considered in totality by the Court whether the Court of Appeal Justices were right when they dismissed the appeal of the Appellant without following these basic principles of law. ARISING FROM GROUND FIVE OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL.
4. Having regard to the decision of this Court in OKONGWU v NNPC (1989)

4 NWLR (PT.115) 309 on how a Respondent can validly respond to the Brief of Argument of an Appellant and the duty of the Court of Appeal to pronounce on every issue validly raised, whether the Court of Appeal Justices were right when they failed to pronounce upon the validity of the Respondent’s Brief in not answering the three distinct and specific arguments in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument as raised by the Appellants at the Court below. ARISING FROM GROUND FOUR OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL.

Mrs. M.O. Eruaga-Idahosa, Principal State Counsel in the Edo State Ministry of Justice for the respondent, adopted the brief of argument filed on 4/10/2021 and deemed filed on 13/1/2022. She formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:
Whether on the (sic) evidence and the circumstantial evidence on Record, the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the prosecution proved the charge of conspiracy to commit murder and murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, to warrant affirming her conviction by the lower Court.

​I shall redraft the single issue of the respondent for use in the determination of the appeal which is thus:-

SOLE ISSUE
If on the evidence the trial and Court below were right to hold the charge of conspiracy to commit murder and murder against the appellant proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower Court was in error when it fell into the same mistake as the trial Court in affirming the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder and so the Apex Court should step in to right the wrong. He citedUnion Bank of Nigeria v Prof. Ozigi (1994) 2 NWLR (pt.333) 385 etc.

That the three ingredients of murder which were to co-exist were all not proved and the Courts below delved into the use of speculation. He cited Orhue v NEPA (1998) 7 NWLR (pt.557) 187 etc.

That the defence of the appellant was not considered by the Court below which is fatal. He cited Ogudo v The State (2011) LPELR-860(SC) p.30 etc.

For the appellant, it was submitted that the Court below failed to pronounce on every issue validly raised by the appellant which was a grave error. He cited Kongwu v NNPC (1989) 4 NWLR (pt.115) 309; Okonji & Ors v Njokanma & Ors (1991) LPELR-2476.

​Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the evidence of PW1, PW6, and PW8 established that the appellant personally aided the 1st defendant to kill the deceased.

That the Apex Court should not interfere in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below as they were not perverse. She cited Adeleke v State (2012) 5 NWLR (pt.1292) 122 at 139; Ugwuanyi v FRN (2010) 4 NWLR (pt.1213) 397 etc.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUE
The law is well settled that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the offences preferred against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and how to go about discharging this burden depends largely on the nature or type of offence involved and the given set of facts and circumstances of a particular case. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt or all shadow of doubt. It means simply, establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence, a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. See Nwaturuocha v State (2011) 6 NWLR (pt.1242) 170 at 193.