OGUNO & ANOR. v. THE STATE

The two accused persons, Lawrence Oguno and Joel Oguno, were arraigned before the High Court of Justice Plateau State for the offences of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the penal Code and abetting the commission of culpable homicide punishable under Section 85 of the penal Code respectively.
The charges read thus:-
1. That you LAWRENCE OGUNO on or about the 31st day of August 1998 at No. 53B Murtala Mohammed Way, Jos committed culpable homicide punishable with death in causing the death of Chief Patrick Oguno by causing him such bodily injury. To wit, stabbing him several times on different parts of his body with knife and pouring a corrosive substance on his body, suspected to be acid, knowing that his death was the probable consequence of your act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 221 of the penal Code.
2. That you JOEL OGUNO on or about 31st day of August, 1998 at No. 53.B Murtala Mohammed way, Jos committed the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death in that you abetted the said Lawrence Oguno in the Commission of the said offence of culpable homicide punishable with death by doing an act, to wit; abetting Lawrence Oguno to dispose of the corpse of Chief Patrick Oguno and failing to report the incident and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 85 and 221 of the Penal Code.
Both accused persons each pleaded not guilty to the charge and thereafter hearing in the case commenced in earnest. It will be interesting to note that the two accused persons are brothers while the deceased Patrick Oguno was their biological father.
At the trial, the prosecution called five (5) prosecution witnesses and tendered five (5) Exhibits. The accused persons testified in their defence and tendered no exhibit. Both declined to call other witness or witnesses.
At the end of the trial proper the learned trial Judge Dusu J in a reserved judgment convicted the two Appellants as charged and sentenced them to death by hanging. See pages 230 – 260 0f the record of appeal.
Both accused persons were dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal Jos Division hereinafter called the lower court.
In a unanimous decision the Court of Appeal on pages 319-342 held thus:-
Particularly pages 341-342 the lower court held thus:-
“From Exhibit 1, 2, 3 and 4 both Appellants were ad idem that 1st Appellant killed the deceased. The 2nd Appellant only aided in carrying the corpse downstairs to hide under the staircase.
From Exhibit 1, 2, 3 and 4, the 2nd Appellant helped in hiding the corpse and also failed to report the crime to the police.
The trial Judge agreed that the drafting of the second count was inelegant but did not think that there was any doubt that the 2nd Appellant is charged with abetting the 1st Appellant in the commission of culpable homicide. The 2nd Appellant was not misled in any way. He understood what he was charged with.
The 2nd Appellant reported that their father was missing but failed to tell them the truth. Was their father really missing when he helped the 1st appellant to hide his body under the staircase?
All the ingredients of the 2nd count were proved from Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 from the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3. The second issue for the 2nd Appellant is resolved against the 2nd Appellant.
Learned counsel for the 2nd Appellant submitted that there was no iota of evidence against the 2nd Appellant. I dare say that the prosecution fixed the 2nd Appellant to the scene of crime from the evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW3. Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were also part of the evidence against the Appellants.
The prosecution proved that it was the intentional act of the 1st Appellant that killed the deceased. Also that the 2nd Appellant had knowledge of the crime and helped the 1st Appellant in hiding the body of the deceased. Prosecution witness 5 also gave evidence as to the primary cause of death of the deceased. All these evidence pieced together read to no other conclusion other than that, the Appellants killed their father and hid his body under the staircase.
The 3rd issue articulated for the 2nd Appellant also fails.
The 3 issue articulated by learned SAN for the 2nd Appellant are all resolved against him. This appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. I affirm the judgment of the lower court and the sentencing thereof in respect of the 2nd Appellant.
The appeals of both Appellants are unmeritorious and therefore dismissed. I affirm the judgment of the trial court. I also affirm the sentence of death by hanging of the 1st Appellant Lawrence Ogunu and 2nd Appellant Joel Oguno”.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court the appellants again appealed to this court on a Notice of Appeal containing five (5) grounds of appeal. They are hereunder reproduced without their particulars:-
1. The Honourable Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that ‘the trial Judge elicited from the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 that both Appellants were in the house with their deceased father when prosecution witness 2 went downstairs to open the shop. It was the Appellants that saw the deceased last alive from the evidence of PW2 and PW3.
2. The Honourable Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that ‘the behaviour of the Appellants on that day was unusual and suspicious and points to no other conclusion that they were indeed the ones that committed the crime’ when suspicion no matter how strong cannot dispence with the need to prove the allegation against the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The Honourable court of Appeal erred in law in affirming the conviction and death sentence passed on the 1st Appellant based on Exhibit 4 when same was tendered through a witness that had no connection with the recording of the said exhibit.
4. The Honourabte Court of Appeal erred in law in affirming the conviction and death sentence passed on the 1st Appellant based on Exhibits 3 and 4 when the contents of the aforesaid exhibits were in direct conflict with the evidence adduced by the 1st Appellant.