CaseLaw
Peter V. State (1994) CLR 6(H) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The appellant was charged with the murder of one Solomon Nwokocha contrary to section 319 of the Criminal Code Law of Rivers State, before the High Court of Rivers State, Ahoada Judicial Division.
The facts relied on by the prosecution are as follows:-The appellant and the deceased were from two neighboring communities and there had been a land dispute between them. On the fateful day, 11th August, 1978, the deceased in the morning, went to a place known as Ebuku bush to check his traps. Earlier, Dickson Nwokocha (P.W.1) the son of the deceased had seen the appellant on the road armed with a gun and a knife going to the same Ebuku bush. Also the same morning, one Reuen Eke (P.W.2) left for his plantain plantation to weed grass. While there, he (P. W.2) heard a gunshot. As he drew nearer to the direction of the shout, he saw the appellant standing with his gun pointing at the deceased. He later ran away after revealing to the appellant that he. P.W.2 had seen him, the appellant.
At about 9.00 a.m. the same day, the P.W.1 was told in the market that his father was dead. He went to the Ebuku bush and saw the, bullet-riddled body. He carried the corpse home and made a report to the police. The same day, one Edwin James (P.W.3), an accountant, had returned from Port Harcourt. He is the head of the extended family of the appellant. On hearing about what transpired, he sent for the appellant and told him to report himself to the Police. The appellant refused. On 12th August, 1978, one Audu Johnson (P.W.4) reported to P.W.3 that the appellant left his gun with him (P.W.4). The P.W.3 reported the matter to the police and three days later, led the police to recover the gun from P.W. 4. Autopsy report on the deceased by Dr. Honario Reyes (P.W.6) showed that the deceased death was caused by gun shot wounds inflicted on different parts of his body. There were about nine points of penetration. Some bullets were also extracted from the body of the deceased.
In his evidence before the trial High Court the appellant denied killing the deceased. He denied seeing any of the prosecution witnesses on the day of the commission of the offence. He also denied P.W. 3's story, and denied ever keeping a gun with P.W. 4. He said that although P.W. 3 was his cousin his relationship with him was not cordial. He further alleged that the bulk of the prosecution witnesses were blood relations of the deceased. He also pleaded alibi, saying that he was in his house throughout the day of the commission of the offence.
The leaned trial Judge believed the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death by hanging. The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment, hence this appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
Whether or not the respondent discharge the burden placed upon it prove its...