By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
INTRODUCTION
Reading through pages of judgments of courts over the years, it has become clear that the ability to tame human emotions plays a significant role in the management of disputes, especially the ones involving crimes of passion. Very often, you read cases where siblings argue over minor issues and such feud would balloon into avoidable fatalities. There are cases in which arguments between a bus conductor and a passenger over mere two hundred Naira will result in the death of one or both of them.
In some cases, we have reports of police and other law enforcement officers shooting civilians over refusal to offer gratification of one hundred Naira. In this case, it was alleged that a young lady was in the habit of always insulting and taunting the appellant at every given opportunity which speaks to the role of family upbringing and positive community engagements. What was the motive of the appellant in his constant struggles with the deceased young lady? What were the elders of the community doing to have allowed this to linger for so long to the point of no return?
The deceased did not make it alive to enable us have the opportunity of her own version of the case but surely this is a warning signal to all parents and guardians to keep close tab on their wards, especially female children, who are daily being preyed upon by some men who cannot control their desires, especially in this case where the appellant feigned alleged insanity. In the end, the deceased lost her life while the appellant is under a death sentence in this rather unfortunate situation. Let us digest the facts of the case and the decision of the courts, all of which should help in shaping unruly and intemperate behaviours.
THE Facts Of The Case
The facts of this case as reported in Chukwu v The State (2026) 3 NWLR (Pt.2030) 43 are herein stated. Prior to the day of the death of the deceased, the deceased and the appellant had some sort of misunderstanding which resulted in the deceased always calling the appellant derogatory names at every given opportunity.
On the fateful day, the appellant went into the bush to defecate wherein he was accosted by the deceased who again rained derogatory words on him. The appellant later saw her at the river bathing and he pushed her into the river where she was later found dead. An angry mob attacked the appellant but the situation was later brought under control. The matter was reported to the Nigerian Police force who arrested the appellant and commenced investigation into the offence. At the close of the investigation, the appellant was charged before the High Court of Ebonyi State.
The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge but the trial court entered a plea of not guilty in favor of the appellant, being that it was a capital offence and the matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of trial, the court found the appellant guilty of the charge, convicted and sentenced him to death. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Further dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, the appellant contended inter alia that at the time of the alleged offence of murder, he was suffering from a state of mind bordering on insanity and that the Court of Appeal failed to take into consideration the inconsistent behavior and statement of the appellant. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the concurrent judgements of the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
THE Judgment Of The Courts
The Ingredients of Murder:
The ingredients to be proved by the prosecution in a charge of murder are: (a) That the victim died; (b) That the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the accused; and (c) That the act of the accused was intended with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the intended consequence. In every case where it is alleged that death has resulted from the act of a person, a causal link between the death and the act must be established and proved in a criminal proceeding, beyond reasonable doubt. The first and logical step in the process of such proof is to prove the cause of death. Where there is no certainty as to the cause of death, the enquiry should not proceed further.
Where the cause of death is ascertained, the next step in the enquiry is to link that cause of death with the act or omission of the person alleged to have caused it. These are factual questions to be answered by a consideration of the evidence. The onus on the prosecution to prove the cumulative presence of the ingredients cannot be compromised in any respect. The onus, which rests squarely on the prosecution throughout the case, does not shift at all. Where the prosecution fails to prove any of the ingredients, the offence of murder would not have been established beyond reasonable doubt and the accused person would be entitled to be discharged and acquitted.
When Medical Evidence May be Dispensed With in Murder Cases:
Where there is evidence that a deceased person was hale and hearty before the occurrence of an offending act and death is instantaneous or nearly so and there is no break in the chain of events from the time of the act that caused injury to the deceased to the time of the death, the death of the deceased will be attributed to that act, even without medical evidence of the cause of death. The rationale for this position is that since that act is the most proximate event to the death of the deceased, it should be regarded as the deciding factor even where it may be taken as merely contributory to the death of the deceased. In the instant case, the most proximate event to the death of the deceased was being thrown into the river which resulted in her being drowned. Whether there was strangulation or not before being thrown into the river was immaterial.
The Duty on Accused Raising Defence of Insanity:
An accused raising defence of insanity must call witness(es) to testify to: (a) Evidence as to the past history of the accused; (b) Evidence as to his conduct immediately preceding the killing of the deceased; (c) Evidence from prison warders who had custody of the accused and looked after him during his trial; (d) Evidence from Medical Officers and/or Psychiatrists who examined the accused; (e) Evidence of relatives about the general behaviour of the accused and the reputation he enjoyed for sanity or insanity in his neighbourhood; and (f) Evidence showing that insanity appears in the family history of the accused. In the instant case, the only evidence of insanity is the information given to PW1 during investigation by the appellant’s father.
There was nothing on record to show that the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant met any of the above-listed guidelines to establish the defence of insanity. The behaviour of the appellant before and after killing the deceased did not suggest even remotely that he was insane. What was revealed from his evidence was that the killing of the deceased was premeditated and out of pure malice. The evidence before the court showed that he was fully conscious and he knew what he was doing at the time he killed the deceased.
Whether an Accused Person Can be Convicted on Confessional Statement Alone:
An accused person can be convicted solely on his confession if the confession is positive and direct in the admission of the offence charged. Voluntary confession of guilt whether judicial or extrajudicial, if it is direct and positive is sufficient proof of the guilt and is enough to sustain a conviction, so long as the court is satisfied with the truth of such a confession. Such a confession would constitute proof of guilt of the maker and suffices as evidence upon which to ground or sustain his conviction. In other words, once, an extra-judicial confession has been proved to have been made voluntarily and it is positive and unequivocal. amounting to an admission of guilt a court can convict on it even if the accused person retracted or resiled from it at trial. Such an afterthought does not make the confession inadmissible.
It is desirable but not mandatory that there is general corroboration of the important incidents and not that retracted confession should be corroborated in each material particular. After all a confession being an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the offence, it is good law that it is the best evidence in criminal trial that the accused committed the offence with which he is charged, so long it satisfies the requirement of the law. This is so because who else knows it better and can say it better than the accused who hatched and executed the crime. In the instant case, the confession of the appellant in exhibit G proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the act of the appellant that caused the death of the deceased.
When a Finding of Court is said to be Perverse and Attitude of Appellate Court Thereto:
A finding or conclusion of a court is said to be perverse when such finding does not flow from the proved evidence or was arrived at wrongly or was anchored on extraneous matters. In all such circumstances, an appellate court will interfere to set it aside and make appropriate findings as justified and borne out by the evidence in the printed record of appeal. But where an appellate court finds that the conclusion reached by a lower court is correct, it has no duty to interfere.
Thus, the duty of an appellate court to interfere will arise only where the finding, conclusion and or decision of the lower court is wrong and or perverse. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal having made the correct findings and reached the correct conclusion based on the evidence on record, there was no reason to set it aside.
