Judgment
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant, Chijindu Maduka was charged and tried with one Chidozie Agunwa for the offence of Murder contrary to Section 274 (1) of the Criminal Code, Cap 36, Revised Laws of Anambra State, 1991. The case of the Prosecution at the trial Court was that during the 2016 end of year Masquerade Festival of Agulu Community in December 2016, the 2nd accused, Chidozie Agunwa was the Masquerade while the 1st accused/appellant was his guide.
In the course of the festival, the deceased; one Kenechukwu Nwokolo was allegedly flogged by the masquerade. In reaction, he held unto the masquerade. In the ensuring fight and while the appellant was trying to separate the fight he was alleged to have hit the deceased with a fist blow on the face and the deceased fell down on the tarred road and hit his head. He died two days later on the 28th December, 2016. In proof of its case the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered four exhibits marked as Exhibits A – D.
On his part, the appellant testified in his own defence and called no other witness. At the close of evidence, both parties adopted their written addresses in support of their distinct positions. In a considered judgment delivered on the 1st July, 2019, his Lordship, Hon. Justice S. N. Odili of the Anambra State High Court sitting at Awka convicted and sentenced the appellant to death by hanging but discharged and acquitted him on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder.
The Court also discharged the 2nd accused on both heads of charge. It is the said conviction and sentence that triggered this appeal filed by the appellant on the 3rd September, 2019 containing three grounds and their particulars as follows: “GROUND ONE: ERROR IN LAW The learned trial Court erred in law when it convicted the appellant on the charge of murder notwithstanding that all the essential ingredients of the offence of murder were not proved. PARTICULARS OF ERROR 1.
The offence of murder, like every other criminal charge, must be proved by establishing the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence as charged beyond reasonable doubt. 2. There was no evidence or inference at the trial that the appellant intended to cause the death of the deceased – which is the required mental element of the offence as charged. 3. In the absence of the mens rea of the offence being established beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court erred in law, therefore, in convicting the appellant of the offence of murder.
