The State V. Aroemeka Aniakor & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A. 

 This is an appeal against the judgment of the Anambra State High Court sitting at Otuocha, delivered by Hon. Justice J. I. Nweze, J., on the 15th day of August, 2012. By virtue of an amended information, the respondents/defendants as the accused persons, were charged in Suit No. OT/19C/2008, with the murder of one Sylvester Mobi and Chioma Anakwe. In proof of the respondents/defendants? guilt, the appellant/prosecution called five (5) witnesses and tendered several exhibits. The respondents/defendants on their own part called two (2) witnesses inclusive of the 6th defendant/respondent herein and also tendered several exhibits in their defence. The learned trial judge after a full blown trial and upon being addressed by learned counsel to both parties, who filed written addresses, found, delivered/entered judgment in favour of the respondents/defendants in the following words;
?From the Court?s observation of the large expanse of land on which the Aro Shrine is situate, which observation is confirmed by counsel on both sides, it is most reasonable to conclude that the

1

degree of certainty required to prove the identity of the Defendants as the killers was not attained. I do not believe the prosecution witness number 3 that the accused persons could see them from the road to shoot at them that night. I do not believe any of the prosecution witnesses that they were able to identify the accused persons as they alleged. I do not believe that Sylvester Mobi made any dying declaration.
In the premise I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the defendants caused the death of Sylvester Mobi and Chioma Anaekwe. It does not mean that all or any of the Defendants are innocent. It only means that their guilt was not proved as required by law. This charge therefore fails. The accused persons are hereby discharged and acquitted.?
(See pages 253 ? 254 of the record of appeal.)
?
The appellant/prosecution not being satisfied with the said judgment, appealed against the same upon twelve grounds of appeal. The said grounds of appeal without their particulars are reproduced below:
?I ERROR-IN-LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law by rejecting the direct evidence of PW2 but went ahead to

2

acquit the defendants despite the fact that he held that:
?I must say that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 are very compelling. They placed each of the accused persons on the scene of crime. They described the weapons each and every one of them was carrying? (At Page 6 lines 3 to 5), and further held that:
?It is true that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 are not inconsistent. The fact that more than 4 years after the alleged crime they could still recite the type of guns allegedly held by the defendants does suggest some form of tutoring.? (At page 8 lines 9 to 12)?
?II MISDIRECTION:-
The learned trial judge erred in law by acquitting and discharging the defendants who were charged with murder despite the fact that circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, strong, cogent, compelling, complete and unequivocal that it points irresistibly to the guilt of the accused persons to the crime of murder. More so, the Lower Court stated at page 4 paragraph 2 lines 14 to 17 of that page of the judgment that:
?It could therefore be said that there is strong circumstantial evidence that the defendants shot the

3

deceased. This is more when it is said that the late Sylvester Mobi made a dying declaration to the effect that the defendants have killed me.?
?III ERROR-IN-LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law by describing his visit to the locus in quo as being in compliance with the law, which is in fact, visit to locus in quo which does not comply with the law, which influenced his decision in this case.?
?IV MISDIRECTION
The learned trial judge misdirected himself when he stated that:
?I am not unmindful of the circumstances leading to the arrest of some of the defendants at Awka. It was alleged that after the murder of the deceased all the defendants ran away. The PW2 however testified that the village was deserted by everybody due to the crisis. Why then should the Court presume the guilt of the defendants simply because they ran away from the village. This is not reasonable.?
?V MISDIRECTION
The learned trial judge misdirected himself that if indeed the accused persons shot the deceased persons they should have shot them at the back instead of in front, which direction of shooting, was

4

not raised during the trial.?
?VI MISDIRECTION
The learned trial judge misdirected himself when he stated at the last paragraph of page 8 of the judgment that:
?I do not believe any of the prosecution witnesses that they were able to identify the accused persons as they alleged.? This is after the same judge at lines 3 to 6 of page 6 of the judgment stated that:
?I must say that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 are very compelling. They placed each of the accused persons on the scene of the crime. They described the weapons each and every one of them was carrying.?
?VII ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law by formulating issues not raised or canvassed in the case when he stated:
?The PW2 however testified that the village was deserted by everybody due to the crisis.?
Why then should the Court presume the guilt of the defendants simply because they also ran from the village? That is not reasonable.?
?VIII ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law by not deciding on the effect of the accused persons not testifying in the case

5

apart from 6th defendant who did not even tell the police that he was in Kutigi in proof of his weak alibi.?
?IX. ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law by not deciding on the alibi put up by the accused persons which were very weak and unsubstantiated.?
?X. MISDIRECTION
The learned trial judge misdirected himself by stating that there were no gun shots at the scene of crime because there were no spent bullets or shells of bullets at the scene thereby believing DW2 who was discredited during cross-examination.?
?XI MISDIRECTION
The learned trial judge misdirected himself about the impact of the offensive weapons and laid emphasis on whether it was a bullet shot or a sharp object which killed the accused, and formed his opinion thereby stating that the cause of death if it was by bullets there would have been point of exits.?
?XII. ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law by holding that ?I do not believe that Sylvester Mobi made a dying declaration.?
?
Henceforth in this judgment, the appellant/prosecution would be referred to as the

6

appellant, while the respondents/defendants would be referred to as the respondents.