Abel Asogwa V. The State (1973)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C
In charge No. E/26C/71, the appellant, then accused, was tried on a charge of unlawfully killing of one Michael Ugwudoha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) at Edem, Nsukka, on the 10th day of January, 1971.
The trial was held at the Enugu High Court and the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by Balonwu, CJ., on 25th February, 1972. The appellant appealed to this court against the conviction. The appeal was heard on 28th of September, 1972 and dismissed. We now give our reasons for dismissing the appeal.
The fact of the killing of the deceased by the appellant is not in dispute. After a review of the evidence, the learned Chief Justice in his judgment held as follows:-
“Having assessed all the evidence given by both sides, I have come to the following findings of fact: (1) That when Fabian began to share out the chicken, the accused suggested that it would not be fair to give any shares to those absent, before giving their shares to those who were present; (2) That the deceased opposed that suggestion, and Fabian ignored it; (3) That as a reaction to this, the accused overturned the basin of meat and a calabash of wine; (4) That the deceased was quite vocal in condemning the action of the accused; (5) That, as a consequence, the accused picked up the knife (dagger), Exhibit ‘C’ and therewith dealt the fatal blow on the chest of the deceased; (6) That at no time did the deceased or any member of the accused’s family hold or beat the accused; (7) That before dealing this blow with the lethal weapon aforesaid, the accused had not taken any drinks on the day in question. In view of the facts found, I have come to the conclusion that neither the defence of drunkenness, nor that of provocation is available to the deceased.”
At the hearing of the Appeal before us, learned counsel assigned to argue this appeal on behalf of the appellant, said that he had nothing useful to urge in favour of the appellant. On the facts as found by the learned trial Chief Justice and on our perusal of the records, we were satisfied that the findings were in accordance with the evidence accepted by the Chief Justice. The two defences we found on behalf of the appellant, i.e., drunkenness and provocation were adequately considered by the learned Chief Justice and we considered his rejection of the defences as justified.
We saw no justification whatsoever to disturb the verdict. The appeal was dismissed for the above reasons.
Other Citation: (1973) LCN/1745(SC)
