Suspicion however grave can’t amount to proof – Abba Aji
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Abia State High Court holden at Osisioma delivered by Hon Justice N.C. Otti on 5/10/2009 in Charge No.HOS/SC/2006, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging for the offence of murder contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code Cap.30 Vol. II, Laws […]
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Abia State High Court holden at Osisioma delivered by Hon Justice N.C. Otti on 5/10/2009 in Charge No.HOS/SC/2006, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging for the offence of murder contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code Cap.30 Vol. II, Laws of the Eastern Nigeria, applicable to Abia State.
The facts of the case for the respondent are that on the 16/12/2005, the deceased, Godwin Okwandu, who was a land agent, left his house at about 6:30am in the company of the appellant and two young men to the appellant’s land situate at Umuode, Abia State, to ascertain its boundaries. Nonetheless, the deceased did not come back home even by 9 pm; consequent upon which the deceased’s wife complained to his younger brother, who equally told a relation; Sunday Nwaochanmuo. Since it was late, a search was conducted the next day where upon the deceased’s body was discovered on the land of the appellant.
The case of the appellant on the other hand was that the appellant who had earlier arranged with the deceased to show the deceased the boundaries of the land for sale, met the deceased in the company of three men on the road to the deceased’s house and five of them trekked to the farm. While the boundaries were been shown, the appellant heard a gunshot and when she was about to shout an alarm, she was at the gunpoint coerced to keep mute by the man behind her and the deceased and two men ran past her. The gunman then kicked the appellant who fell down unconscious but later regained consciousness and wandered in the bush.
She however later got to Osisioma Police Station where she reported to a woman police but she was discouraged to go ahead with the investigation after being informed that the men have ran away from the crime scene. Because of the traumatic shock and the bruises on the appellant, she went to a nearby hospital for treatment. The appellant was nevertheless later arrested by the Osisioma Police Station but on the complaint lodged by the deceased’s relations; the case was transferred to SCID, Umuahia, where their statements were taken and recorded. After the preliminary investigation (because the investigation was ongoing), the appellant was charged on one count offence on 19/5/2006 for the murder of Godwin Okwandu at the Abia State High Court holden at Osisioma. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.
At the trial of the case, the prosecution called five witnesses and closed its case while the appellant testified and called her husband also as a witness and closed her case. After address of parties, judgment was delivered on 5/10/2009 wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code.
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to this honourable court vide a notice of appeal dated 20/10/2009 and filed on 26/10/2009.
The appellant’s counsel formulated two issues for determination and same adopted by the respondent’s counsel:-
Issues for determination:
Is the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt discharged by the prosecution in this case, as held by the court below, having regard to the gamut of evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Whether there exists reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case having regard to the totality of evidence adduced by parties in course of trial at the court below.
The appellant’s counsel has submitted that the trial court’s decision to the effect that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in that the appellant was a party to the murder of the deceased as the circumstantial evidence available is of the requisite quality and standard required in law to sustain conviction, is perverse as the said finding has disregarded pieces of evidence which cast doubts on the case of the prosecution. His contention is that the case of the prosecution is largely circumstantial in the absence of an eyewitness statement except the ipse dixit of the appellant as the only available evidence. Though he admitted that a criminal case can be proved by any of the above stated classes of evidence by citing Ahmed v. Nigerian army (2011) NWLR (PT.1227)89 AT 94 Ratio 1, he argued that the case of the prosecution did not satisfy the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt whose burden is still on the prosecution to discharge.
I have had the opportunity of aptly reading through the arguments of parties, the evidence and the judgment of the trial court. I must confess that I am most enthralled by the well researched, erudite and judicial work of the trial judge and the judgment is a commendable and superb one.
It is pertinent to note that the testimony of any other witness is hearsay as none saw them except the alleged testimony of PW1. This is therefore why I have laid weight to considering the evidence of the appellant and that of PW1 who testified to the fact that the appellant came to their house in the morning of 6/12
To be continued