The PW.4, Dr. A. O. Egejuru, a Pathologist, who issued the Medical Report, Exhibit B, was quite categorical in Exhibit B that the cause of the death of the deceased in his opinion, was: Traumatic and haemorrhogic shock due to soft tissue injuries and subdural haemorrhoge with associated coming (sic) associated upon blunt injury to the head." He observed on the corpse of the deceased that;

There are two separate cuts (lacerations) on the right side of the scalp (head) measuring 7.0 cm and 6.0 cm long respectively with associated bleeding under the head.

The defence of the Appellant was alibi. He called no other evidence, other than his own ipsit dixit to establish his defence of alibi that –

On 19th November, 2005 (he) travelled to (his) village to see (his) sick brother and - came back on 4th December, 2005, being Sunday and heard that thieves came to the madam's house and beat her up that lead (sic) to her being admitted in the hospital. (He) also told that the woman said that (he) was among the people that came to her house in the mid night of 29th November, 2005 and beat her up that caused her harm. (He) did not go back to the village where (he) was living as Pa tenant - after hearing that the madam mentioned (his) name as one of the people that beat her up. (He) was afraid that is why (he had) not gone back to village. (He) also heard that Policemen were looking for (him) and (he) did not go to answer the Police because of fear. (He) was at I.T.C. Park on 5th December, 2005 when Police came and arrested (him).

The oral testimony of the Appellant, as DW.3, puts it beyond doubt that the Appellant and the deceased were very well known to one another. The learned trial Judge in his judgment found as a fact that "the deceased knew the accused persons very well and the accused persons also knew the deceased very well; that "all of them live in the same neighbourhood," and that because there is no dispute about that, the case was not one of mistaken identity of the accused by the deceased.

The only defence put up by the Appellant is alibi. The learned Judge, not impressed, dismissed the defence convicted the Appellant. This further appeal turns largely on facts