Aramude Ohunyon Vs The State (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

IGUH, J.S.C.

The appellant, Aramude Ohunyon, along with three others was on the 9th day of October, 1991 arraigned before the High Cburt of the former Bendel State of Nigeria, holden at Ubiaja on a two count information.

He was charged in count one with the offence of conspiracy to commit felony, to wit, murder contrary to section 516 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 48, Volume II, Laws of the former Bendel State of Nigeria, 1976 and in count two with the murder of one Gabriel Akharia contrary to section 319(1) of the said Criminal Code. Each of them pleaded not guilty to both counts.

At the subsequent trial, the prosecution called four witnesses and closed its case. The fourth accused person was discharged in a no case submission made on his behalf by his learned counsel whilst the appellant, as the first accused, and the two remaining accused persons testified on their behalf and called one witness.

The substance of the case as presented by the prosecution is that on the 29th April, 1990, one Gabriel Akharia, the deceased, with some other persons were holding a meeting in the house of the eldest man in their Ineme quarters, Ugboha. In the course of this meeting, the deceased was sent with others to Ekebo quarters to invite one Isabu Oseghae to the meeting.

Following some information received, P.W.1 with some other members of the Ineme quarters ran to the scene of crime. There, they saw the appellant inflict matchet cuts on the head of the deceased while the other assailants used sticks and an iron rod to assault him. As a result of this attack, the deceased slumped on the ground and his assailants ran away.

P.W.1 reported the incident to the Ugboha Police Station. The Police proceeded to the scene of crime with P.W.1 from where the deceased was taken to the General Hospital, Uromi for treatment. He died the following day at the Hospital.

P.W.3, the medical Doctor who treated the deceased at the General Hospital, Uromi testified that the deceased, on admission, was bleeding profusely from his external injuries. These consisted of twin lacerations placed obliquely at both parietal areas of the head, deep enough to expose the skull bone. The left laceration was 7cm long but the one on the right measured 4cm in length. These injuries could have been caused by a sharp object. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to rupture of the vessels in the brain with the attendant internal haemorrhage inside the brain which caused cerebral disfunction. He explained that the external injuries he described caused cardio vascular collapse or the death of the deceased.

The defence of the appellant and the other two accused persons was a complete denial of the offences charged. They claimed that the fatal cuts were inflicted on the deceased accidentally by one Stephen Amedu. This was while the said Stephen Amedu was trying to attack the appellant with his matchet.

At the end of the trial, the 2nd and 3rd accused persons were acquitted and discharged by the learned trial Judge, Onobun, J., while the appellant as the 1st accused was convicted for the offence of the murder of the deceased and was duly sentenced to death.

Dissatisfied with this judgment of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Benin Division against the said conviction and sentence. On the 9th December, 1994, the Court of Appeal dismissed the said appeal. It is against this judgment of the Court of Appeal that the appellant has further appealed to this court .

Both the appellant and the respondent filed and exchanged their respective written briefs of argument. In the appellant’s brief, the one issue formulated for resolution is whether the prosecution established the case of murder beyond reasonable doubt as provided by law. The respondent, for its own part, identified two issues in its brief for the determination of this court. These are –

“(i) Whether the Prosecution proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as required by law;

(ii) Whether the failure of the Prosecution to call Stephen Amedu as a witness is sufficient to vitiate conviction.”