Single credible witness sufficient to secure conviction

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja Friday, March 18, 2016 Suit number: SC. 159/2012 Between OLUWATOYIN ABOKOKUYANRO  – Appellant    and THE STATE     – Respondent  WALTER SAMUEL N. ONNOGHEN- JSC CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI     JSC KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS     JSC KUDIRAT MOTONMORI O. KEKERE-EKUN   JSC CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE     JSC  Judgement (DELIVERED BY CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, […]

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Friday, March 18, 2016
Suit number: SC. 159/2012
Between
OLUWATOYIN ABOKOKUYANRO  – Appellant   
and
THE STATE     – Respondent
 WALTER SAMUEL N. ONNOGHEN- JSC
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI     JSC
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS     JSC
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI O. KEKERE-EKUN   JSC
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE     JSC
 Judgement
(DELIVERED BY CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC)
 

The appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Ekiti Division, delivered on 25th day of March, 2011, unanimously affirming the judgment of Ikole High Court, delivered on 25th October, 2006, which convicted the appellant to death and life imprisonment for murder and attempted murder respectively.
The appellant was arraigned with three other accused persons (Sunday Jegede, Sunday Udor and Olarewaju Ayan) before the trial High Court on the 11th day of July, 2001 on three-count information of conspiracy to murder, murder of one Mayowa Adeleye and the attempted murder of one Falade Ojo.
The appellant and his co-accused pleaded not guilty but before the commencement of hearing, one of them, by name Sunday Jegede (the then 1st accused) died and the appellant became the 1st accused throughout the trial.
 
PROSECUTION CASE – in the afternoon of 29th November, 1998, the deceased victim, Mayowa Adeleye was sent by his mother, PW1, Alice AdeJeye to deliver food to his father, who worked as a security guard at Ryinfolu Odindun Comprehensive High School Oke-Ayedun Ekiti. The deceased Mayowa Adeleye, never returned home as expected, consequent upon which his parents raised an alarm, which resulted in a search – party being organized by the town for him on the order of the king.
PW2, Falode Ojo, was a member of one of the search parties constituted to look for the missing boy and in the course of the search that night, he was accosted in the bush by the late Sunday Jegede and three others, the appellant inclusive.
It was the testimony of PW2 that during the encounter with the appellant and his cohorts, they, not only prevented him from searching the building where they were found but that the appellant brought out a sword to slay him but in the ensuing struggle, he (PW2) managed to escape from the scene after snatching the sword.
The PW2 promptly reported the incident to the king who directed the apprehension of the appellant and the others.
The headless corpse of Mayowa Adeleye was eventually found in the bush the following morning, near the house of the late Sunday Jegede, and partly covered by curtains belonging to the said Sunday Jegede.
The prosecution called six witnesses and the appellant gave evidence in his defence but called no witness. He denied committing any of the offence.
The trial court, after a painstaking evaluation of the evidence, found the case proved beyond reasonable doubt by direct and circumstantial evidence against the appellant and his co-accused and consequently convicted and sentenced them accordingly.
On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Ekiti Division, the trial court judgment was affirmed by a unanimous decision and dismissing the appeal; hence a further appeal now before us.
The appellant raised three issues originally but applied to abandon the 1st issue which same along with submission thereon were struck out accordingly. The surviving two issues will be renumbered as 1 and 2 as follows respectively.-
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the prosecution proved a case of murder and attempted murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Court of Appeal was right in upholding that decision?
2. Whether the contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution as to the date of the arrest of the appellant is not fatal to the prosecution’s case and whether the court below was not wrong to have held otherwise?
The two issues will be taken separately and serially.
ISSUE 1
The contention of the appellant in this issue is that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt, any of the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy, murder or attempted murder against the appellant as required by law. This notion, the appellant’s counsel conceives, is because the evidence adduced by the respondent at the trial was riddled with fatal inconsistencies, contradictions and founded on mere suspicion.
On behalf of the respondent however its counsel argues vehemently to the contrary and submits that the prosecution had produced sufficient evidence, direct and circumstantial, in prove of the alleged offence against the appellant.
It is elementary to restate that by Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, any person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until he/she is proved guilty; the law also places the burden of proving the guilt of a person accused of committing a criminal offence on the prosecution. Both statute and case laws are settled that the burden placed on the prosecution is not discharged until the guilt of an accused person is established beyond reasonable doubts. See the cases of
Idemudia V. State (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt 610) 202 at 215; and
Esengbedo V. State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt 113) 57.
The provision of Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2001 is also in support that the standard of the burden of proof required in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt with sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Act placing this burden on the prosecution which does not shift in general terms. See the case of Nwosu V, State (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt 562) 433 at 444, and also the case of Aigbagbon V. State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt 666) 686 at 704 where this court reiterates that:­