Obiora Obianwu V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Anambra State High Court delivered on 26/7/2000 by Hon. Justice C. E. Iyizoba wherein Her Ladyship convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced him to death by hanging. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:
The undisputed facts as found by the learned trial judge are that P.W.1 and the appellant were friends. The appellant owed P.W.1 a pair of jeans while the appellant owed the deceased N200.00. The deceased went with P.W.1 to the house of the appellant to retrieve the jeans. An altercation ensued between the three of them. The appellant stabbed the deceased with a broken bottle and the latter died. The learned trial judge accepted the version of P.W.1 as against that of the appellant to hold that the assault by the appellant which caused the death of the deceased could not be excused by self defence, provocation or accident and convicted the appellant of murder.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant initiated this appeal by a Notice

1

of appeal filed on 3/8/2000 containing three grounds of appeal and transmitted records on 17/1/2008. The appellant’s brief was filed on 13/11/2015. Respondent’s brief was filed on 19/2/2016 and deemed filed on 23 /2/2016.

In the appellant’s brief settled by J. O. N. Ikeyi, three issues were identified for determination to wit:
a) Whether there were material discrepancies in the oral evidence of the appellant and his extra Judicial statement made to the police which could tilt the case against the appellant.
b) Whether there was proper evaluation and assessment of the evidence of the prosecution by the trial Judge, to enable the Court do Justice to the case.
c) Whether the prosecution proved the offence of murder by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

In the Respondent’s brief settled by E. I. Okafor the issues raised by the Appellant for determination were adopted by the Respondent. After careful perusal of both briefs, I shall crystallise the issues for determination into one issue as follows:
Whether the Learned trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence of the prosecution and defence to make the finding that the appellant

2

is guilty of the charge of murder.

Learned appellant’s counsel submitted that there were no material discrepancies in the oral evidence and confessional statements made by the appellant to the police and argued that discrepancies would only exist where there is a difference in two accounts of events rendered by one or more persons. Counsel argued that the attitude of the Courts to discrepancies is such that the Courts treat them as inconsequential. Counsel argued further that where the appellant had denied signing Exhibit A which was the appellant’s statement on 15/4/93 as it did not include the ‘B’ which was part of his signature, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the signature belongs to the appellant. He cited Section 101 of the Evidence Act 2011; Zein v Geidam (2004) FWLR (237) 457 at 461; Adenle v. Olude (2003) FWLR (Pt.157) 1074; Okereke v The State (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt.540) 75 at 91; Gabriel v The State (1989) 12 SCNJ 33 at 42.

Counsel argued that an in-depth study of the oral evidence of the appellant shows that the appellant was very consistent in his evidence as to how the injury which led to the death of the deceased was

3

inflicted on him. He referred the Court to pages 44-52 of the record. Counsel argued that where there is conflict in the testimony of P.W.1 and a doubt was raised in his testimony, that doubt should have been resolved in favour of the appellant. Counsel argued that P.W.1 made contrary statements about the course of the incident. Counsel argued that P.W.1 confirmed that there was a fight between the appellant and the deceased. Counsel argued that in one breath, P.W.1 claimed Ejima was present while in another breath, he claimed that Ejima was not actually present during the incident. Also appellant’s counsel argued that the statement of p.W.1 on pg 13 of the record to the effect that the appellant had earlier threatened to kill him was an afterthought and contradicts later statements. He submitted that due to this conflict, the evidence of P.W.1 is unreliable and cannot be acted upon. Counsel referred the Court to page 10 of the records and cited Chibuike v State (2011) All FWLR [Pt.559] 1172 at 1174; A.M.C (Nig) Ltd v. Volkswagen of (Nig.) Ltd (2011) All FWLR (Pt.588) 928 at 935; Ohanaka v. Achugwo (1998) 9 NWLR [Pt.564] 37 at 55-56; Queen v. Ukpong (1961) 1

4