CaseLaw
Onah V. State (1985) CLR 12© (SC)
Judgement delivered on December 6th, 1985
Brief
Facts
The appellant was tried and convicted of murder by the Anambra State High Court, sitting at Abakaliki. Only the prosecution adduced evidence at the trial. The learned trial judge believed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The gist of their evidence may be summarised as follows. On the 15th January, 1979, Ona Nweje, P.W.1, who is the husband of the accused, was in the compound of one Idoke when his sister-in-law, called Eke Agbo, came to tell him something; as a result of what she told him, P.W.1 returned to his house. From the house Eke Agbo took him to his farm which was only 5 yards away. Eke Agbo showed him a dead body. P.W.1 recognised the corpse as that of Edeugwu Ogwa, who was his relation and with whom he lived before he got married to the accused. He observed matchet cuts on the corpse. The cuts were on the neck, shoulder and left hand the thumb of which had been severed. P.W.1 raised alarm but there was no response from any quarters. He therefore left for the house of the deceased husband, P.W.2, He brought the latter with him to the spot where the corpse of the deceased was lying. After P.W.2 saw the corpse both P.W.1 and F.W.2 left together for Ezzamgbo police station, where they lodged complaint with the police.
In her evidence-in-chief before the learned trial judge. P.W.3 said that on 14 January, 1979, the accused accompanied by her (accused's) child and Eke Agbo came to her house at night. The accused asked P.W.3 replied that she did not know his whereabouts. Accused therefore informed P.W.3 that they would spend the night with her. While all of them were sleeping, P.W.3 heard alarm being raised. P.W.3 asked the accused about the alarm and the latter replied that she did not know why it was being raised. On the following day that is the 15th January, 1979 another alarm as raised in the morning, P.W.3 asked a question about the alarm and Eke Agbo said in the presence and to the hearing of the accused, that Edeugwu was killed by the accused. The accused said nothing, P.W.3 asked the accused why she killed the deceased. It was then that the accused denied doing so. P.W.3 therefore passed the information to Uro Unna, her (P.W-3's) husband, who in turn made a report to Chief Chibeze. The accused was taken to the police by Chief Chibeze.
The complaint made against the accused was investigated by police sergeant Franklin Irozuru, P.W.4. Accompanied by two other policemen, P.W.4 went to Umuagara where he observed what he described as bloodstain around the com-pound of P.W.I. He saw the deceased lying dead with her neck almost severed and other wounds on her left palm and-leg. While searching, P.W.4 discovered a matchet smeared with blood in the room of P.W.1. He collected the matchet and tendered it in evidence at the trial as exhibit A. The corpse of the deceased was removed by P.W.4 to the public mortuary at Abakaliki, where a post-mortem exam-ination was performed by a doctor. P.W.5, While in police custody, the accused made a statement (Exhibit B) under caution. The statement was taken down by P.W.4.
P.W.4 testified further that while the accused was making Exhibit B he observed that the wrapper which she wore was blood stained in many places. The wrapper was put in evidence as Exhibit C. Under cross-examination, P.W.4 admitted that neither the matchet (Exhibit A) nor the wrapper (Exhibit B) were sent to Forensic Laboratory, Lagos for examination. He also said that the accused did not talk coherently while making exhibit B.
The last witness called by the prosecution was P.W.5, the medical officer, that performed the postmortem examination on the deceased. The relevant portion of his evidence reads:“The deceased was 35 years old. The deceased had two deep severe knife cuts on both sides of the neck that nearly severed the head, a deep cut on the left palm elbow (sic) of the left hand and the shin of the left leg. The deceased in my opinion died of bleeding from multiple knife injuries and in particular from the cut in the neck. The cuts could have been caused with a matchet."
This in effect, is the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial. The accused exercised her option not to give evidence. However in the course of making his final address, her counsel submitted that the nature of the prosecu¬tion's case was circumstantial and the evidence adduced was not sufficient for the trial court to find the accused guilty as charged. He submitted further, but at the tail-end of his address, that the "accused was suffering from some delusions."
In a well considered judgment, the learned trial Judge (Offiah. J.) found that there was a nexus between the accused and the offence charged. He gave his rea¬sons for so finding to be as follows: