Position of the Law on the Admissibility of Evidence Provided by the Blood Relative of a Crime Victim?

CASE TITLE: ENEJI v. STATE (2024) LPELR-62647(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH JANUARY, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division which affirmed the Appellant’s conviction and sentence by the High Court of Cross River State.

The Appellant, as the 3rd accused person, was arraigned alongside two other persons for the offences of conspiracy and causing grievous harm. The matter started at a community meeting summoned by the paramount ruler of Bekwarra Local Government Area in Cross River State, His Royal Highness Stephen Onoh to discuss the management of Eyatem Primary School.

At the trial, it was the case of the Respondent that PW1 left the hall where the meeting was held to use the bathroom, and he observed signals among the 1st accused person, the Appellant, and the 2nd accused person. It was stated that upon leaving the hall, PW1 was attacked by the Appellant and the 2nd accused person with fist blows, sticks, slippers, and sandals and sustained injuries all over his body with a threat to kill him if he did not leave the school for the 1st accused person to manage. PW1 was rescued by PW3, who heard the noise from the beating from his commercial vehicle while he was waiting for passengers. On the other hand, the Appellant testified that on the day of the incident, he saw PW1 and the 2nd accused person exchanging words on his way from the toilet at St. Mark Primary School, Gakem. He heard the sound of slaps, which eventually separated the fight. The Appellant denied seeing the 1st accused person at the scene of the commotion. The 2nd accused person, on his part, stated that PW1 blew catarrh/mucus from his nose and onto his body. He stated that when he challenged PW1, he slapped him.

After the hearing, the learned trial Judge acquitted the 1st accused person of both counts and accordingly discharged him. The Court however, found that the Appellant and the 2nd accused person had beaten up PW1. It was also found that the injuries sustained by PW1 as shown in Exhibit I, did not qualify as grievous harm. The Appellant and the 2nd accused person were therefore convicted for the offence of conspiracy and the lesser offence of causing harm to PW1. They were sentenced to one-year imprisonment for each of the counts, with the sentences to run concurrently.​

The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

Dissatisfied, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issues for determination formulated by Respondent viz:

(i) Was the Court below right in affirming the admissibility of Exhibit 1 (Medical Report) in evidence?

(ii) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the conviction of the Appellant for the offence of assault contrary to Section 355 CPL, Cap C16 Vol 3 of the Criminal Code Law, Laws of Cross River State of Nigeria 2004?

(iii) Whether the Justices of Appeal were right in affirming the finding of fact and verdict that the Appellant and the 2nd accused person conspired to carry out an unlawful purpose, to wit, inflicting harm on PW1?

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- FRESH POINT(S) ON APPEAL: Instance(s) where an Appellate Court will not allow fresh points to be raised on appeal
• APPEAL- REPLY BRIEF: Purpose of a reply brief; whether a reply brief is meant to re-argue the case of the appellant
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of trial Court to determine credibility of witness(es); whether and when an appellate Court will and/or will not interfere
• APPEAL- APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT: Whether the Supreme Court can entertain an appeal directly from the decision of the High Court
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Attitude of the Supreme Court to interference with concurrent finding(s) of fact(s) of Lower Courts
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL FORCE AND ASSAULT: When the offence of assualt is said to have been committed
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: Meaning and nature of the offence of conspiracy; whether the offence of conspiracy is separate and distinct from the substantive offence
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: Whether a charge of conspiracy will automatically fail where the charge for the substantive offence fails
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: Nature of proof required to establish criminal conspiracy
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- JOINT TRIAL OF ACCUSED PERSON(S): Whether the same verdict must be returned in respect of accused persons jointly tried together on the same evidence
• EVIDENCE- PRIMARY EVIDENCE: Statutory provision on primary evidence
• EVIDENCE- EVIDENCE OF A BLOOD RELATION: Position of the law on admissibility of the evidence of a blood relative of the victim of a crime

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol