ABIORO V. THE STATE

• Pages: 50-52

50



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1970] N.S.C.C.

ABIORO V. THE STATE

5

RAJIU ADIO ABIORO

V

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.

MADARI KAN,



J.S.C.

UDOMA,



J.S.C.

13th March, 1970

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 169/69

15

Criminal Law - Homicide - Murder - buy - Direction judge entitled to express

himself on the evidence before him - Duty of Judge to warn jury that they



were not bound by them and that they were entitled to form their own



20

views - Safer for Judge to refrain from expressing his opinion strongly in

matters relevant to the facts or issues in the matter.

ISSUE:



1. What is the duty of a Judge in summing up evidence to the jury in a criminal



25

trial?

FACTS:

The appellant was charged with the murder of the deceased. He was tried by

a Judge and jury and convicted. There was no eye- witness to the killing - the case



against the appellant was largely based on circumstantial evidence. The deceased



30

and the appellant lived in the same village. The deceased, a washerman went to

the stream to do some washing and was never seen again. The appellant, a hunter,

accompanied a search party into the stream and was said to have warned the other

members to be careful as the stream was filled with broken bottles. Another search



party found and recovered the body of the deceased. The body had matchet cuts



35

and gun shot wounds. Post mortem revealed that the deceased died from a

haemorrhage and shock due to gun shot wounds. Meanwhile, the appellant dis-

appeared - police and villagers looked for him. He was caught by the police three

weeks later and in his evidence before the court, the appellant said he saw a big



bird on a plank in the stream, shot at it and later discovered that he had killed a



40

man. He led the police to where he kept his matchet which was dug up from 0

-

9

ground and later his gun which he kept in his house. He was convicted.

On appeal, counsel for the appellant complained that the trial Judge misdi-

rected the jury when he said that the accused warned the search party not to go



further as there were broken bottles in the stream. A 2nd ground of appeal was



45

that the Judge directed the jury that certain witnesses for the prosecution must be

believed.

HELD:

1. Whilst the opinion of the Judge in a criminal trial on issues of fact may be of



help to the jury, V. is nevertheless the duty of the Judge to warn the jury that they



50

are not bound by them and that they are entitled to form their own views.