CASE TITLE: ASSAH v. STATE (2025) LPELR-80871(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH APRIL, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.
FACTS:
The Appellant in this appeal was arraigned, tried, and convicted in the Delta State High Court sitting at the Ughelli Judicial Division on a one-count charge of murder.
At the trial, the prosecution (Respondent) called three witnesses, who testified as PW1, PW2, and PW3, respectively. The PW1 testified that he was a police corporal serving with the Appellant at the time of the incident leading to this appeal. She was on duty on 18/8/2002 together with one Inspector Sunday Iniabosi, PC Gift Jorbedon, Corporal Michael Okon, and Corporal Isaac Okulaye when a case of attempted robbery involving the deceased was reported at the station. That the deceased was put behind the counter to await a detention order, but when he noticed that the place became quiet, he pushed her (P W1) down and escaped. However, at about 4.45 am the following day, Civil Defence Officers arrested and brought back the deceased (Christopher Ojeabulu) to the station. That she went to the toilet after that, so she could not tell what happened to the deceased.
The PW2 also testified that he was attached to the Divisional Police Headquarters Ughelli at the time of the incident and that the Appellant was his colleague. As a member of the investigating team, he recorded the statement of Sunday Iniabosi, who was the C.R.O. on duty on the day of the incident.
P.W.3, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, stated that he was an Inspector of Police attached to the Delta State C.LD, Asaba, at the time of the incident. He also stated that a petition was written by one Barrister F.B. Olorogun, an Ughelli-based lawyer, on behalf of one Joseph Ojeabulu, complaining about the unlawful killing of his son, Christopher Ojeabulu. The Commissioner of Police, Delta State, directed him and his team to investigate. That in the course of the investigation, he received the written statements of the Appellant, which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits C, C1, and C2, respectively. The autopsy report, a Baretta rifle, and the investigation report were also tendered through him as Exhibits A, D, and E, respectively. The petition was tendered through him under cross-examination as Exhibit “F.”
The Appellant testified for himself at the trial as D.W.1. He did not call any other witness. At the close of evidence, learned counsel addressed the Court, and in a considered judgment delivered on the 22nd day of July, 2009, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal but the appeal was dismissed; hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered whether the lower Court was not wrong to have affirmed the decision of the trial Court that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Attitude of the Supreme Court to interference with concurrent findings of fact(s) by lower Courts; meaning of perverse decision/judgment
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER: Ingredients of the offence of murder; Ways of proving the offence of murder
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON: Whether the fact that an accused told lies is a proof of his guilt
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- DEFENCE/PLEA OF ALIBI: Meaning and nature of the defence of alibi
- EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF: Burden and standard of proof in criminal cases; what does proof beyond reasonable doubt mean
- EVIDENCE- PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS: Presumption of correctness in the findings of Courts; on whom lies the burden to rebut same
- EVIDENCE- DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN: When the doctrine of last seen will not be applicable
- EVIDENCE- WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE: Whether failure to call a particular witness would amount to withholding evidence
- EVIDENCE- CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to ground conviction
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
