Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

JUDGEMENT: Charging Person Who Aids Commission Of Offence As Principal Offender

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja On Friday, the 13th day of May, 2022

Before Their Lordships

Chima Centus Newze

Amina Adamu Augie

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju

Adamu Jauro

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

Justices, Supreme Court

SC.359/2013

Between

Lambert Nwiko Appellant

AND

The State Respondent

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Adamu Jauro, JSC)

Facts

The case of the Respondent at the trial court was that one Baribiae Iledae (deceased) and his sister Cecilia Tor-ue, who testified as PW1, went to the deceased’s farm to do some work. PW1 testified that on their way back from the farm, the Appellant, the 1st and 3rd accused persons and others still at large, who were in the 1st accused person’s Peugeot 504, attacked the deceased with knives and axes while others joined them from the bush. PW1 stated further that she went to a nearby village to call for help and upon her return to the scene of crime, the assailants had killed the deceased as a result of multiple machete wounds and left his body in the bush.

The following morning, she reported the matter to the village head, one HRH Mene Baridem of Lumene, who wrote her a letter which she took to the Police. Prior to the incident which led to killing of her brother, there was a pending litigation between the deceased and the 1st accused person, whose car was used in conveying the killers to the crime scene.

On his part, the Appellant denied committing the offence charged. He stated that he did not participate in the offence. He also denied making statements to the Police, which were tendered and admitted as Exhibits J and J2. At the conclusion of trial and after the adoption of final written addresses, the trial court found the Appellant and two others guilty as charged and sentenced them to death by hanging.

The convicts were dissatisfied with the judgement of the trial court and appealed to the Court of Appeal, which court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Further dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue for Determination

The following sole issue was raised for determination by the court:

“Whether on the total circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal sitting at Port-Harcourt was right when it affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial court.”

Arguments

Submitting on the sole issue, counsel for the Appellant argued that it is evident the Appellant was not one of those who killed the deceased, as PW1 did not mention his name in her statement to the Police when the incident was still fresh in her memory, but only mentioned his name in her oral evidence made about two years after the incident occurred. He submitted that this contradiction in Exhibit A and PW1’s oral evidence, rendered her evidence unreliable. It was further submitted that where a witness claims to have seen a person committing a crime but does not name him at the earliest opportunity, the failure to mention his name will detract from any credibility which the court would have attached the witness’ testimony – UDEH v STATE (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 609) 1. Counsel submitted further that the only evidence that linked the Appellant to the crime, was his statement to the Police in Exhibit J which is not confessional, as the Appellant denied committing the offence. He argued that the contents of Exhibit J were clearly contradictory to the events as narrated by PW1, and this raised doubt as to the veracity of her evidence regarding the death of her brother. Counsel referred to the extra-judicial statement of the 1st accused person, wherein he argued that the 1st accused person stated that PW1 admitted to Chief Baridam that she did not know that she accused the 1st accused person of killing the Appellant because he had previously falsely accused the deceased of robbing him. It was submitted that, this was indicative of PW1 having a vendetta against the 1st accused person. That the evidence of PW1 that the Appellant killed the deceased because of the pending litigation between them, also further showed that she had an axe to grind with the Appellant. It was submitted that the case as it pertains to the 1st accused person was important because if it was shown that he was not guilty, the Respondent’s case would collapse, as it was alleged that it was the 1st accused person who gathered the Appellant and others to kill the deceased.

Responding to the submissions above, counsel for the Respondent enumerated the elements of the offence of murder, and submitted that the parties are ad idem that the first element was established beyond reasonable doubt. In response to the Appellant’s contention that PW1’s evidence lacks credibility because she did not mention the Appellant’s name as one of the killers in her first statement to the Police, counsel submitted that the contention is not supported by the available evidence as the trial court found the testimony of PW1 to be direct, and unshaken on the identity of the Appellant as one of the killers of her brother. Counsel argued further that the evidence of PW1 as an eyewitness testimony, remained unshaken during cross-examination. He posited that assuming the Appellant did not directly participate in the killing of the deceased, he would still be liable to be convicted for murder by the combined effect of Sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code. That by planning with the other culprits to kill the deceased and his failure to stop them from executing their plan, makes him liable as a principal offender. On the third ingredient of the offence of murder, it was submitted that the post mortem concluded by PW7 which showed that the deceased died from about 10 machete wounds, manifested the intention of the accused persons to kill the deceased or cause him grievous bodily harm. Counsel urged the court not to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts accepting the evidence of PW1 that the Appellant was one of those who killed the deceased, as the findings of the courts below are not perverse and are based on the evidence on record.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

In deciding the sole issue, the Supreme Court held that the law has crystallised in our criminal jurisprudence, that an accused person is presumed innocent until he or she is proved guilty. The Prosecution is saddled with the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person, and the standard of such proof in criminal cases or trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It is trite law that the Prosecution is duty bound to prove the following essential elements beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction from the offence of murder: 1) That the deceased is dead, 2) that the death of the deceased person resulted from acts of the accused person 3) that the accused caused the death of the deceased intentionally or with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. The ingredients must co-exist, and where one of them is either absent or tainted with any doubt, the charge is said not to be proved. The law is settled that the Prosecution can prove its case against the accused person by all or any of the following means: a) Evidence of an eyewitness of the crime b) confession or admission when voluntarily made by the accused and c) circumstantial evidence which is positive, compelling and points to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence – ADEYEMO v STATE (2015) LPELR- 24688 (SC).

Applying the principle above to the facts of this case, the Apex Court held that it is not in contention that the deceased died; the evidence of PW7 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased’s body puts it beyond reasonable peradventure, that the deceased died as a result of Hypovolaemic shock due to blood loss from injuries sustained from multiple machete cuts inflicted on him. The decision of the court below regarding the death of the deceased was not challenged, and the failure of the Appellant to challenge this specific finding means the said finding is accepted as binding on him.

The issues in contention in this appeal, are whether the deceased’s death was caused by the act or omission of the Appellant, and whether the act or omission causing the death of the deceased was intentional. From the evidence of PW1, it can be deduced that the Appellant and the 1st accused person were known to each other. Upon tendering the Appellant’s extra-judicial statement in Exhibit J, the Appellant denied making the said exhibit, and the trial court, in due observance with the principles guiding retraction of extra-judicial statements, admitted the said statement, and thereafter, looked for other evidence on record to ascertain whether the said statement was true and probable. The Appellant in his evidence at trial merely denied the allegation, however, he admitted knowing the 1st accused person and the deceased. Going by the testimony of PW1 and that of PW7 on those who killed the deceased and the cause of his death, it is safe to conclude that the Appellant’s confession was probable and true, and his denial of the role he played in the death of the deceased, was a mere afterthought.

Further, by the combined effect of Sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code, when an offence is committed, persons who carry out the act or makes the omission; persons who omit to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence; persons who aid another in committing the offence; and persons who counsel or procure any person to commit the offence, are all deemed to have taken part in committing the offence, and may be charged with actually committing the offence. Thus, the excuse that the Appellant did not participate in the actual killing of the victim by hacking him with a cutlass to death, does not exculpate him from the offence of murder.

Regarding the last ingredient of the offence of murder, the court is of the view that a person who cuts another with a machete severally causing excessive bleeding leading to Hypovolaemic shock, ought to know that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence of his action. The court held that the Respondent led satisfactory evidence proving the guilt of the Appellant for the offence of murder, beyond reasonable doubt.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

Edwin Anikwe for the Appellant

A.O. Omotosho for the Respondent.

What's your reaction?
0Love It!0Do Better!
Show CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment

This Pop-up Is Included in the Theme
Best Choice for Creatives

Purchase Now