Solomon Ehot V. The State (1993)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BELGORE, J.S.C.

The appellant, Solomon Ehot was tried for murder of one Dickson Ejah at Akpet Village, Akamkpa, Cross River State, on the 4th day of December, 1977. The medical report on the Corpse of Dickson Ejah indicated a deep wound on his upper arm led to severe loss of blood and as a result he died of hemorrhage. The wound was caused by the appellant who at the burial of his sister, suddenly stabbed the deceased on the hand.

He died not long after due to severe loss of blood. Some of the witnesses who were near the scene had to wrestle with the appellant to disarm him of the pen-knife, the weapon of the murder. On hearing that the victim of the stabbing had died, the appellant fled the village for Abak where he was subsequently arrested. The appellant made a voluntary statement to the police which he at the hearing denied ever making.

Learned trial Judge on considering the objection raised to the voluntary statement on submission that the appellant never made the statement, ruled the statement was admissible because it was his belief the appellant made it. No further issue was made of this statement again except now in this court. The High Court trial ended in his conviction for murder under S.319 (1) Criminal Code Law of Cross River State and he was sentenced to death by hanging. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division where his counsel in a well articulated Brief of Argument concluded as follows:

“With respect, the appellant’s counsel will re-iterate that on facts and in law he has nothing to urge in favour of this appeal. The conviction of the appellant by the learned trial Judge of Calabar High Court was therefore in order. There is no need to add other grounds of appeal in the circumstances.”

Learned state counsel for the respondent in that appeal agreed with the appellant’s counsel. The Court of Appeal in reserved judgment found no reason to disturb the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

On appeal to this court, the appellant filed amended Notice of Appeal and with leave of Court, grounds of appeal on issues not raised in the court below. Thus we have the following grounds of appeal:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. The Court below erred in law/on the facts in supporting the trial Court’s conclusion that the offence of murder charged was proved “Beyond reasonable doubt” against the Appellant, when there was either no evidence (and/or alternatively, no sufficient evidence) in proof of some of the vital and statutory constituent elements of the offence of murder to justify the said adverse conclusion.

Particulars of Error

(As to “Cause of Death”/ “Identification of the Body of the Victim”)

(a) (i) The medical evidence upon which the prosecution purported to rely in proof of the cause of death, and of the identity of the body of the alleged victim is of little or no probative value as to those facts, in that neither did its alleged maker give evidence in Court, nor do his said “Post Mortem report” and an alleged “Forensic Report” [if any] form a part of the Record of proceedings upon which the Appellant’s conviction is sought to be affirmed.

(ii) The other evidence adduced by the prosecution in attempted proof of the cause of death, and of the identity of the victim, is tenuous and/or speculative.

(iii). Having regard to the combined/separate premises of (i) and/or (ii) above, and on the available evidence, the court below was in no position to confirm either that the person to whom references were made in court was the very victim alleged to have been killed, or (if his identity was sufficiently proved), that the Appellant’s act directly “could have caused”, or that the Appellant’s act “directly” (or “substantially”) did cause the victim’s death, to the exclusion of all other causes.

(iv). In the absence of the required proof of identity of the victim, and in the absence of proof of death as a result (either direct or substantial) of the Appellant’s act, the only verdict which the court below could safely have entered was one of an acquittal in the Appellant’s favour.