Rufus Anyanwu & Ors. V. The State (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HARUNA M. TSAMMANI, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellants in this Consolidated Appeal Nos: CA/PH/171A/2004, CA/PH/171B/2004, CA/PH/171C/2004, CA/PH/171D/2004, CA/PH/171E/2004, CA/PH/171F/2004, were jointly charged before the High Court of Imo State Owerri Judicial Division with the murder of one Anthony Ikechukwu Okoronkwo, aged eleven (11) years, which is an offence punishable under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap. 30. Laws of Eastern Nigeria, 1963 applicable to Imo State of Nigeria.

The brief facts of the case as presented by the prosecution before the trial court is that, on the 19/9/1996, the deceased victim of the crime one Master Anthony Okoronkwo, was hawking groundnuts around Otokoto Hotel when one Innocent Ekeanyanwu lured him into the hotel on the pretence that he was buying the groundnuts.

That it was in that process that the deceased was killed by Innocent Ekeanyanwu with the assistance of Alban Ajaegbu and Samson Nnamito, on the instruction and request of Vincent Duru alias Otokoto who was the Proprietor and Managing Director of the hotel. That it was Leonard who Duru had requested for the head of a young male for ritual purposes. In the process the deceased’s head was decapitated and the tip of his penis cut off, while the headless body was buried in a farm cultivated by the wife of Vincent Duru alias Otokoto within the hotel premises.

It was while Innocent Ekeanyanwu was on the mission of delivering the head of the deceased as instructed by Vincent Duru to Leonard Unogu, that he was arrested by a team of policemen at a road block acting on a tip-off by one Hilary Opara. The said Innocent Ekeanyanwu was searched and found with the head later discovered to be that of Ikechukwu Okoronkwo. Upon interrogation by the police, the said Innocent Ekeanyanwu informed the police that he killed Ikechukwu Okoronkwo and that it was his uncle Leonard Unogu alias Ochiriozuo of Eziama who told him to procure the head for him. That he had gone to deliver the head to Leonard Unogu but did not see him, and was on his way back to Owerri when he was arrested. Those facts were contained in two separate statements he made to the police, which statements were admitted as exhibits 21 and 36 respectively.

Based on the contents of Exhibits 21 and 36, and the facts discovered as a result thereof the Appellants were arrested and charged for the murder of Ikechukwu Okoronkwo. It should be noted that, the said Innocent Ekeanyanwu died in police custody before conclusion of investigation.

At the trial, the prosecution called 11 witnesses, and tendered several exhibits which included the statement of the Accused/Appellants made to the Police. Each of the Appellants testified at the trial. At the close of evidence and addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge, C.E. NWOSU-IHEME; J (as he then was) believed the case as presented by the prosecution. The learned trial judge accordingly convicted each of the Appellants and sentenced them to death by hanging. The Appellants being aggrieved by their conviction filed Notices of Appeal.

The Appeals as filed by the Appellants were consolidated by this court on the 20/1/2012. I now proceed to consider each of the appeals as filed by the Appellants. I begin by considering Appeal No: CA/PH/171A/2004.

Now, the Appellant in Appeal No: CA/PH/171A/2004 is Rufus Anyanwu. He was the 4th accused person before the trial court. He was granted leave to appeal out of time vide motion dated the 26/9/2006. The Notice of Appeal contains four (4) Grounds of Appeal as follows:

1. GROUND ONE

The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when she (sic) refused to evaluate the entire defence of the Appellant and sentenced the Appellant to death on ground of suspicion.

PARTICULARS

i. The defence of partial insanity or delusion was not considered.

ii. The defence of not having participated in the murder was not considered

1. GROUND TWO

The Learned Trial Judge erred in raw in holding that the discrepancies as to whether the Appellant was at the hotel on the day of the murder has left the court with no option than to disbelieve his defense.