The State V. Aroemeka Aniakor & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

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: