SC won’t interfere with sound concurrent decisions – Muhammed

 

JULIUS ABIRIFON – APPELLANT

AND

THE STATE -RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Ibrahim Tanko  Muhammad, JSC)

 

The appellant herein, along with others: Sunday Abirifon and Mathew  Olomi Abirifon were charged with conspiracy, and murder of one Peter John, an indigene of former Bendel State. He was an annual labourer to Mr. Mathew Oloni Abirifon (father to the appellant). Mr. Mathew Oloni Abirifon owed Peter John (the deceased) an amount of money in the sum of N30,000.00 (thirty thousand Naira) being money due to the deceased as his annual dues for the year 2008. It was in a bid to avoid the payment of the money to late Peter John that Mr. Mathew Oloni Abirifon conspired with his children and murdered the deceased. The charge was brought before the Ekiti State High Court holden at Ado Ekiti (trial court) pursuant to Sections 324 and 319(1) of the Criminal Code Laws of Ondo State as applicable in Ekiti State. Before trial commenced however, Mr. Mathew Oloni Abirifon and Sunday Abirifon died and their names were struck out, subsequently, from the trial court’s cause list, now leaving the names of the appellant and one other.

On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the two counts charge. The case then proceeded for full trial. Witnesses were called. Exhibits were tendered. After the close of evidence and defence, respective learned counsel for the parties addressed the court. At the end of trial, the learned trial judge found the appellant guilty as charged, convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting in Ilorin. His appeal was unsuccessful as it was dismissed. The appellant appealed, further to this court on a sole ground of appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant distilled the following issue for l determination:

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the affirmation of the conviction and sentence of the 1st appellant by the Court of Appeal.  

Learned counsel for the respondent adopted the issue formulated by the appellant as set out above.

Now, the main complaint of the appellant in both the court below and this Court is that the trial court was wrong in convicting and sentencing him to death on the offence of murder when the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt in that: a) the conviction of the appellant was not based on any eye-witness testimony;

 b) the conviction was based on uncorroborated/independent evidence;

c)    the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence which was not direct and did not fix the appellant at the scene of the crime, and

d)    there was ample evidence that the appellant lived in Lagos far away from the scene of the crime in Ekiti and that he arrived at Ekiti two days after the commission of the crime was neither controverted and nor was he seen at the scene of the crime;

e)    that the police (prosecution) suppressed the statements voluntarily made by the appellant and never brought before the trial court;

f)     the guns and cutlasses admitted in evidence as the weapons used in committing the crime were not scientifically proved to be the ones used by the appellant and no linkage was established between the weapons and the appellant.

g)    There were several material contradictions in the case of the prosecution that were never rationally explained.

In dealing with this appeal vis-a-vis the sole issue raised by the appellants it is always helpful to state from the outset, the requirement(s) of the law in order to secure conviction. In a murder charge such as this, brought pursuant to Section 319(1) of the Criminal Law, Cap.30 Vol. II of the Laws of 1978 Ondo State (as applicable in Ekiti State), the prosecution has the burden to prove that:  

a)   the accused person killed/murdered the deceased;

b) the killing was unlawfully committed and c) the killing was intentional.

There are several methods laid down by the law in proof of such a crime in discharging the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This means that the offence of murder (as in this case) can be proved beyond reasonable doubt by any or a combination of any of the following methods:

  I.     by confession of the accused person;

Ii.      by direct evidence and or

Iii.     by circumstantial evidence.

See further: Emeka v. State (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.734) 666 at 683; Oladipopo v. The State (1993) 2 NWLR  (Pt.590) 253.

In what appears to be captivating, the learned trial judge made the following finding, among others, in proof of the offence of murder with which the appellant was charged:  

 “Having dispassionately considered and found as established all the ingredients of the offence of murder, the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution which I equally consider credible and the cogent confessional statements of the accused person,’ I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Peter John (M) was unlawfully caused by the deliberate and intentional act of the two accused persons. There was no justification in law for the act. In my well considered view, what happened in this case was an unleashing of a vicious death by the entire Abirifon family on the deceased a stranger but dutiful labourer who in pursuit of earning a means of livelihood came all the way from Taraba State to sojourn in Ekiti State. This was certainly not a way of rewarding someone who had served so to speak the Abirifon family for some couple of years uninterrupted and I dare say faithfully too. This was a heinous crime perpetrated wickedly and secretly far away from person eyes. However, the magnetic and eagle eyes of the ‘Law’ run to and from the nations and indeed the whole world. Its very long arms are more than able to catch criminals and contraveners of the law. The acts of the accused person leading to the death of the deceased were impious acts. They deserve a corresponding great reprimand, grant consequences and punishment in accordance to law.                                

From the above dicta, it is clear that the decisions arrived at by the two lower courts is concurrent. Except where there are strong reasons, this court is always loathe to interfere with such concurrent decisions. No such strong,compelling and special reasons have been adduced by the appellant to make me :1 interfere with such concurrent decisions of the two lower courts. In fact I find

both decisions to be sound and lucid being supported throughout by earlier  decisions of this court with which, unless reviewed by the same court (for which there is no evidence), I must be bound. I therefore find it difficult to interfere with the decision of the court below. I rather affirm the decision in finding the appeal unmeritorious and I accordingly dismiss it.