‘Circumstance where medical evidence not needed to prove cause of death’

State v. Eze

 

Citation: (2020) LPELR-50622(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

In the Awka Judicial Division

Holden at Awka

ON Thursday, 9th July, 2020

Suit No: CA/AW/45C/2018

Before Their Lordships: 

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme

Justice, Court of Appeal

Rita NosakhareK Pemu

Justice, Court of Appeal

Bitrugyarazama Sanga

Justice, Court of Appeal

Between

The State – Appellant(s)

And

Mabel Eze -Respondent(s)

 

Leading Judgment delivered by Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme, J.C.A.

 

Facts

The Respondent, Mabel Eze, threw raw acid at her husband Christian Eze (the deceased), which eventually was said to have led to his death.

The Respondent, in her confessional statement, which was admitted at the High Court, without any objection as Exhibit P4, stated that she thought the deceased intended to elope with his secret lover, having converted her N800,000 to personal use, after he told the Respondent that he (the deceased) needed the money to start business. The Respondent upon sighting the deceased with his bag decided to pour the raw acid, which she purchased earlier on the deceased, which eventually caused his death.

The Respondent was arraigned before Anambra State High Court on a two-count charge of act intended to cause grievous harm and murder contrary to Sections 288 (9) and 274 (1) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 36 Revised Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria, 1991.

In a considered judgment delivered on the  March 6, 2017, the trial judge discharged and acquitted the Respondent on the charge of murder and never referred to Count 1 where the Respondent was charged with act intended to cause grievous harm.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

Issues for determination

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

1. Whether the lower court’s decision discharging and acquitting the Respondent on the grounds of the fact that the Appellant did not tender the autopsy report at the trial did not violate and amount to the wrongful interpretation of Section 55 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011.
2. Whether the refusal/negligence failure of the lower Court to consider the Appellants count 1 at the lower Court did not amount to denial of fair Hearing and has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal could invoke its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act L. F. N. 2004 to rectify the error and consequently send/remit the case back to the High Court of Anambra State of Nigeria sitting in Ogidi for trial de novo (retrial) before another Judge.

 

Appelant’s submissions

Counsel argued that failure by the prosecution to tender the autopsy report did not in any way violate Section 55 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011. Counsel contended that failure by the High Court to consider Count 1 of the charge amounts to denial of fair hearing and occasioned miscarriage of justice. He cited numerous authorities to drive his points home. He therefore prayed the court to invoke its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004 to right the wrong and consequently remit the case back to the trial court for trial on the merits.

 

Respondent’s Submissions

Arguing the issues, counsel contended that there was no breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing by the non-determination of Count 1 of the charge as to render the entire trial a nullity. He argued that there are sufficient materials before the Court of Appeal to determine Count 1 of the charge which the trial court omitted to pronounce on.

On the count of murder, counsel submitted that the High Court was right to have held that the prosecution failed to prove that the Respondent murdered the deceased as there was no evidence from which the High Court could have inferred that the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the Respondent.

 

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES

Resolving the issues, the court stated the trite position of the law that that pursuant to Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Going further, the court stated that to establish the offence of murder, the first of the essential ingredients to be established beyond reasonable doubt is that the deceased is dead. It must also be established that the deceased met his death from an unlawful act or omission of the accused person. Further, it must be shown that the said unlawful act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. Finally, it must be shown that the accused was not availed of any defence for his said act or omission which resulted in the death of the deceased. Citing Abogede V. STATE (1996) 5 NWLR (PT. 448) 270, BAGUDU V. STATE (1993) 6 NWLR (PT. 301) 634, State V. John Ogbubunjo (2001) 3 SCN 119 at 123.

On the failure of the High Court to consider the count of act intended to cause grievous harm, the court stated the position of the law that a Court of Law has a duty to consider and resolve all issues submitted to it for adjudication. That failure to consider all the issues would amount to breach of fair hearing. That any proceeding wherein a breach of fair hearing occurs amounts to a nullity. Relying on Edibo V. State (2007) 13 NWLR (PT. 1051) 306, Osi V. Accord Party (2016) LPELR 41388.

The court then examined the record of appeal which revealed that the trial judge found as a fact that the Respondent made a confessional statement wherein, she admitted that she poured raw acid on the deceased. The said confessional statement was admitted in evidence without objection. In this regard, the court held that that once a confessional statement is in evidence it becomes part of the case of the prosecution which the court is bound to consider provided that it admits all the essential elements of the offence charged. See Akpan V. the State (2001) 15 NWLR (PT. 737) at 745. That where a confessional statement is admitted in evidence without objection from the accused, he is deemed to accept same as voluntary.

Going further,the court stated that by the record of appeal, it was established as a fact that the deceased died within a year and a day of the pouring of the acid on him by the Respondent. Sections 263, 266, 267 of the Criminal Code Cap 36 Laws of Anambra State 1991 were cited. The court then held that as a result, it was unnecessary for the prosecution to provide medical evidence (Autopsy report) as the cause of death was obvious. That once the prosecution has established cause of death of the deceased and provided proof that the death was as a result of the unlawful and intentional act of the accused, medical report/evidence ceases to be a sine qua non to the conviction of the accused person. See Zubairo V. State (2015) 16 NWLR (PT. 1486) 511.

Based on the foregoing, the court held that the failure of the High Court to consider Count 1, that is, act intended to cause grievous harm, was an infringement on the fundamental rights of the Appellant which occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

 

HELD

The court resolved all the issues against the Respondent and allowed the appeal. The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the case back to the Chief Judge of Anambra State to be assigned to another judge of the High Court of Anambra State other than V. N. Agbata, J. for accelerated hearing. The court also revoked the bail granted to the Respondent.

 

Appearances:

1. O. Onwujekwu

For Appellant(s)

 

1. N. Maduechesi

For Respondent(s)