Sunday Amala V. The State (2004)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJIWUNMI, J.S.C.

By this appeal, the appellant, Sunday Amala is seeking to set aside the majority judgment recorded against him by the court below per Ikongbeh & Ogebe (JJCA) wherein his conviction for the offence of murder by the trial court was affirmed. His trial and conviction arose upon an information filed by the Attorney-General of Abia State that the appellant and Ngozi Onyenso on the 5th day of March, 1992 at Ntigha Nvosi, in Isiala Ngwa Judicial Division murdered one Nwa Nwaosuagwu Ojo.

At the trial, the learned trial Judge having considered the evidence, delivered a considered judgment in which he concluded that the two accused persons were guilty of the offence of murder, convicted each of them and passed the sentence of death on each of them. As they were both dissatisfied with the judgment and orders of the trial court, each of them appealed to the court below. That court after due consideration of the evidence on record and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, formed the view that the 2nd appellant, namely, Ngozi Onyenso was wrongly convicted by the trial court. The court below therefore ordered that the conviction and sentence pronounced upon Ngozi Onyenso be set aside. In its place, the court below made an order of discharge and acquittal in his favour.

This appeal as stated above is therefore against the conviction of Sunday Amala and its affirmation by the court below. In order to appreciate the argument canvassed in this appeal for and against his conviction, I will reiterate briefly the facts led at the trial as found in the printed record. The case for the prosecution appears to be that, on the 5th day of March, 1992, Imo Onuoha P.W.3, saw the appellant while P.W.3 was returning from Ndiolumbe pushing his motorcycle that had broken down. He alleged that he heard the appellant shouting and running. He had with him a matchet and a climbing rope. He then saw him run into the house of Christopher Nwamuo and he immediately raised an alarm in order that some persons might go to verify if there had been an accident or someone had fallen from a palm tree. Lovina Enyinaya next gave evidence as P.W4. Part of her evidence is that the deceased was a friend of her family and that on the 5th day of March, 1992, he had his breakfast at 6 a.m. with her in her residence. The deceased thereafter left for work. At 2 p.m. of the same day, she came to the road when she heard some people shouting that the deceased had been killed. And there on the road she saw the body of the deceased on the ground. She further testified that she saw the appellant, Christopher Nwamuo and the other accused at Uzomgbalo. The P.WA then went to inform the maternal relations of the deceased that he had died. They then went with her to the scene where they saw the dead body of the deceased, and P.W4 added that she saw that the legs of the deceased were tied with rope. The evidence of the arrest of the appellant was given by Friday Onwughara who claimed that he was a member of the search party that was set up to locate the whereabouts of the appellant. He was according to this witness arrested in Obomo on the 27th of April, 1992. After his arrest, he was handed over to the police in Umuahia. P.W.7, Corporal Ogbonnaya Item, No. 132271, who was detailed to investigate the alleged crime, took two voluntary statements from the appellant which were admitted by the trial court and marked exhibits “A” & “B” respectively. P.W.7 also executed a search warrant in the home of the appellant where he recovered a climbing rope and a matchet. They were both admitted at the trial and marked exhibits “E” & “F” respectively. The prosecution also called Nwaogwugwu Ojo as P.W.1, a brother of the deceased who also identified the body of the deceased to P.W.6, Dr. Anyinwo Joel Nzerem. In the opinion of P.W.6, cause of death of the deceased was due to severe haemorrhage from the cut on the chest and ruptured heart. He also formed the view that the cut must have been inflicted with a sharp object like a knife.

In his defence, the appellant stated that on the 5th day of March, 1992, he had gone on hire to trim or cut some palm trees and the surrounding bush for one Christopher Nwamuo. For the job, he used climbing ropes and a knife. According to the appellant, he claimed he had no knowledge that the land on which he worked was being disputed with any person as no one told him anything. However, he continued by saying that after trimming the palm trees, the deceased, whom the appellant said he did not know before, accosted him and wanted to know what he was doing. He responded by telling the deceased that it was Christopher Nwamuo who had hired him to trim the palm trees for him. He claimed that the deceased then threw a stick at him and when he asked why the stick was thrown at him, the deceased threw a stick at him a second time. At that stage appellant said that one of his ropes fell down and the deceased picked it up. Appellant continued by saying that while climbing down the tree, he noticed that the deceased was already at the foot of the palm tree. According to the appellant, the deceased then tried unsuccessfully to tie him to the palm tree with the climbing rope. As a result, a fight ensued between him and the deceased. In the course of the fight, the deceased being stronger than the appellant, threw the appellant to the ground. The deceased who had a knife, then held the appellant by the throat, and that prevented him from shouting. Appellant claimed that while struggling to free himself from the deceased, his (appellant’s) knife cut the deceased on his belly. The appellant said he then took to his heels. The deceased chased him for a while and fell down. The appellant made good his escape by running to his own house. And when he learnt that the deceased had died, he ran from his house to take refuge at Itunata, where he was arrested.

The appellant was as previously noted, convicted of the offence of the murder of the deceased by the trial court and sentenced accordingly to hang by his neck until pronounced dead. His conviction and sentence were confirmed by the majority decision of the court below. In this court, learned counsel for the appellant, based on the grounds of appeal filed against the judgment and orders of the court below, has in the appellant’s brief raised the following issues for the determination of the appeal:

“1. Whether there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant murdered the deceased.

2. Whether the defences of self-defence and provocation were adequately considered and did not avail the appellant.
3. Whether the arraignment and plea of the appellant was in compliance with the mandatory provisions of S. 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
4. Whether there was any evidence of conspiracy to warrant invoking the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code which was the basis of the conviction of the appellant which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
5. Whether the failure by the majority of the Justices of the Court of Appeal to make a specific finding that there was no evidence of conspiracy between both the appellant and the acquitted accused person is not fatal to the case.”

In the respondent’s brief, learned counsel for the respondent formulated two issues, which adequately encompassed the questions raised in this appeal by the appellant. However, the merits of this appeal would be considered upon those issues raised in the appellant’s brief.

In the appellant’s brief, issues 1 & 2 were argued together. With regard to these issues, the questions raised for the appellant are two folds. The first being, whether the guilt of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt as required in law. And the second question is, whether in the course of the consideration of the evidence led, the learned trial Judge considered adequately the defences of self-defence and provocation, which learned counsel argued were available to the appellant.

In respect of the 1st issue, it is contended for the appellant that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant. Particularly the prosecution failed to prove by direct evidence that it was the voluntary acts of the appellant that caused the death of the deceased. In other words, argued the appellant’s learned counsel, no direct evidence linking the appellant with the death of the deceased was proved by the prosecution. Also learned counsel argued that there was no circumstantial evidence that the prosecution could call in aid to establish the guilt of the appellant. In support of all his submissions, he referred to the following cases: Alabi v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 307) 511; Okoro v. State (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 94) 255; Ubochi v. State (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 314) 697; Bello v. State (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 343) 177. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited the attention of the court to the view taken of the evidence of the appellant that he lied with regard to his evidence concerning the events that led to the death of the deceased. As this view by the trial court he submitted, was erroneously affirmed by the court below, it is his submission that the finding be reversed. It being his submission that the duty lies on the prosecution to establish its case by proven evidence. In support ofthat submission, he referred to the following cases: Yisau v. State (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 379) 636 at 644; Gufwat v. State (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 327) 435 at 462.

With regard to whether the defences of self-defence and provocation were duly considered by the trial court before concluding that the appellant was guilty of the offence, it is his submission that the trial court did not consider those defences. And he further submitted that the court below wrongly affirmed that decision of the trial court. I do not propose to set out herein the arguments for the respondent in the respondent’s brief in reply to that of the appellant. But they would be considered along with my consideration of the merits of the issues raised by the appellant.

Now, there is no question that the established principle in all criminal cases tried by any court within this jurisdiction is that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt upon the established evidence before the trial court. That burden on the prosecution never shifts. After due consideration of the evidence led at the trial, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty. Now, I accept the submission that from the evidence led, none of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence that they saw the appellant inflict the mortal wounds that caused the death of the deceased. However, the learned trial Judge in the course of his judgment had this to say about the evidence at page 52 of the record. It reads:-

“If the deceased was bigger and stronger as both accused said, and was holding machete, how could the first accused alone have over powered, killed him and never got a scratch in return The truth is that the three men who P.W.2 saw at the scene and 1st accused in exhibit

“A” admitted that PW.2 came to the scene and who PW4 saw running through a track road at Uzoe Ngbogo did the act with malice aforethought supplied by P.W.1 to the effect that Christopher Nwamuo who had land dispute with the deceased.”