Asuquo Ana Inyang Vs The State (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C. 

The appeal in this case turns on whether the defence of insanity was established at the trial. The appellant was convicted of the murder of one Kokoma Ebiemi on the 4th September, 1970 and sentenced to death by Koofrey, J., on 2nd August, 1971 at the Calabar High Court. The appeal against the conviction was heard on 14th August, 1972 and dismissed. We now give our reasons.

The case for the prosecution was that the deceased, Kokoma Ebiemi, the appellant and several others, including 2nd, 3rd and 4th prosecution witnesses were asked to collect some cocoyams by their village chief. This was on the 4th September, 1970. The farms which the coco-yams were to be collected belonged to some Ibo farmers, who had deserted their village known as Ikot Ana Biase.

Some of the people sent carried food with them as the farms were far away from their village. After walking for a distance of about four miles the people sat by the side of a stream to have breakfast. The appellant who did not carry any food with him joined the 4th prosecution witness and his group and helped himself from the food brought along by the latter. This witness called the attention of the appellant to the fact that he was helping himself faster than others. At this stage the appellant got annoyed and “shaking” with anger he went for his matchet.

He then proceeded to chase all the people with his matchet and they all ran into the bush and hid themselves. The deceased unfortunately got tripped over a tree stump and fell down. The appellant caught up with her and cut her at several places on her body with his matchet. The deceased eventually died from the wounds thus sustained.

The doctors, who performed the post-mortem examination described the wounds on the face, forehead, leg and hand. The one on the forehead was about 3 inches long and penetrated into the brain tissues exposing the brain. The cut on the face ran across the right eye along the bridge of the nose to the left angle of the mouth, and this cut was so deep that it went through the hard palate.There was a cut on the right hand and it was deep to the extent of almost severing the hand into two. A cut on the right knee went through the flesh and severed the lower portion of the leg which remained hanging by a fold of flesh. There was another matchet cut over the right foot which nearly severed it into two parts. On the right knee itself there was another cut which involved the “capsule” of the knee joint. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased died as a result of (a) laceration of the brain, (b) fracture of the skull and (c) severe haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries.

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th prosecution witnesses, who were eye-witnesses, gave consistent and corroborative evidence of the savage and brutal matchet cuts inflicted on the deceased by the appellant.

In his statement to the police, the appellant denied the allegation and said that he was suddenly apprehended in the bush from where he had gone to fetch cassava roots. At his trial, the appellant, whilst denying the allegations made against him, stated that he had gone to the bush to cut bushropes. It is his defence that on his way from the bush some people met him and asked him to follow them to the bush. He refused and these people beat him up so severelly that he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness he found himself tied to some sticks in the compound of the village head. It was there that he was told that he had killed a woman.

He was taken to Ikot Ana beach and put in a canoe. It was there he saw the corpse of the decease placed in the same canoe. He was next taken to Ikot Okpora Police Station.

He admitted knowing the 3rd and 4th prosecution witnesses in the village, adding that 6th prosecution witness recorded his statement, Exhibit 1. He alleged that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th prosecution witnesses told lies against him and further that they were not present in the bush when he was attacked by some people.

The learned trial Judge considered the evidence before him and, after evaluating same, accepted the version of the incident as given by the three eye-witnesses – 2nd, 3rd and 4th prosecution witnesses. He rejected the evidence of the appellant and gave his reasons.

Learned Counsel for the appellant at the trial in the court below raised the defence of insanity on the basis of the following:-

(1) That when the appellant got annoyed he shouted “my shoe, my shoe” (he wore a soldier’s boots) and later fell on the ground shaking and on getting up started to attack people with his matchet. It is, his submission that this act of the appellant is a sign of epilepsy. He referred to the appellant’s ‘shaking with anger’ as a sign of fits consistent with epilepsy. Although a doctor gave evidence in the case, he was not questioned about the alleged symptoms, which he, as an expert could give opinion about. With respect to the learned Counsel, we do not know how he came to conclude his diagnosis of epilepsy.

(2) That during the preliminary investigation the Magistrate suggested that the appellant be placed under medical observation for a month. There is no evidence that that was done, and the doctor who gave evidence said that he saw the appellant for the first time in court.

Learned Counsel, who appeared for the appellant in the court below, did not, in our view, consider the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the Criminal Code read along with Section 140 of sub Section 1 of the Evidence Law of the former Eastern Nigeria. What the court has to consider, when a defence of insanity is raised, is whether an accused person at the time of the commission of an act or making an omission is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of capacity to understand what he is doing or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.

The burden of establishing a defence on the ground of insanity rests on the accused. The burden placed on an accused charged with a criminal offence shall be deemed to be discharged if the court is satisfied by evidence given by the prosecution whether on cross-examination or otherwise, that such circumstances in fact exist – see Sections 140(1) & (2) of the Evidence Law and Section 28 of the Criminal Code. See Regina v. Yayiye of Kadi Kadi (1957) NRNLR page 207; Rex v. Ashigifuwo 12 WACA page 389; Williams Echen v. The Queen 14 WACA page 158 and Mathew Onakpowa v. The Queen (1959) 4 FSC page 150.

On the fact as established in this case, we are in complete agreement with the learned trial Judge that no evidence has been led either directly or by inference to establish the defence of insanity. It will pay much dividend, if learned counsel who intends to raise such a defence checks up the necessary provisions of our law and the decisions thereunder, before embarking on putting up a defence of insanity. In this appeal, it is quite obvious that there is no iota of evidence put before the court to support such a defence.

Mr. Akinola, the learned Counsel who appeared for the appellant stated that he had nothing to urge in favour of the appellant. We are of the view that the learned trial Judge had rightly rejected the defence of insanity and convicted the appellant for murder. For these reasons we dismissed the appeal at the hearing.

Other Citation: (1972) LCN/1389(SC)