Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Festus Amayo V. State (2001) CLR 12(m) (SC)

Judgement delivered on December 13th 2001

Brief

  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Defences
  • Medical evidence in proof of death
  • Manslaughter
  • Unlawful and dangerous act

Facts

This is an appeal against a conviction for murder and sentence of death. The Appellant, a police constable, was charged with the murder of one Julius Duru under section 316 of the Criminal Code, Cap.30, Laws of Eastern Nigeria, 1963, erroneously stated as section 319(1). The alleged offence took place on 22 October, 1987 at Avu junction, Port Harcourt/Owerri Road. He was tried in the High Court of Imo State presided over by Ubah, J. On 26 November, 1991, the learned trial judge in the concluding part of his judgment held:

  • "The testimonies of the 3rd, the 1st and 5th prosecution witnesses offer ample, and satisfactory proof of the ingredients of the offence of murder. In my humble view, the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt."

Earlier, he regarded the 3rd P.W. as the only eye-witness relied on by the prosecution. He accordingly found the Appellant guilty of the offence of murder and convicted him. He then sentenced him to death.

On 13 July, 2000, the Court of Appeal (Port Harcourt Division) dismissed the Appellant's appeal and affirmed the conviction for murder and sentence of death. In the leading judgment by Akpirorah JCA, with which Nsofor and Ikongbeh JJCA concurred, he observed as follows:

Appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court.

  • "The 3 P.W not being an accomplice or having any interest to serve in the case, his evidence was rightly in my view acted upon by the learned trial judge in holding that the killing of the deceased by the Appellant was voluntary. It is now well settled that a court can convict upon the evidence of one witness without more, if the witness is not an accomplice in the commission of the offence and his evidence is sufficiently probative of the offence with which the accused has been discharged (sic: charged)."

There is no doubt that both the trial court and the court below accepted the 3rd P.W as a vital witness upon whose evidence much reliance was placed.

Issues

  • "1.
    Whether the Appellant was exculpated from criminal responsibility for the...
    Read More