MBENU & ANOR. V. THE STATE

• Pages: 231-244

MBENU & ANOR. V. THE STATE



231

5



MBENU & ANOR. V. THE STATE

NATHANIEL MBENU & ANOR.

V

10 THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

15



KAWU,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

7th July, 1988

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 71/1987

Criminal Procedure - Appeals - Concurrent findings - Lower courts - Appellate courts -

Policy of Supreme Court.

Evidence - Burden of Proof on prosecution - Section 135 Evidence Act - Tainted witness -

Corroboration - S.176 Evidence Act - Rejection of Evidence by trial court - S.226(2)

Evidence Act.

ISSUES:

1. When will a party be regarded as a tainted witness and what must the court bear

in mind when treating the evidence of such a party.

30



2. Under what circumstances would the testimony of a defence witness be ignored

by a trial court.

3. What is the law as regards convictions sustained on the basis of circumstantial

evidence.

35



4. Whether during a criminal trial the burden placed on the prosecution, is for the

prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond any shadow of

doubt.

5. Under what circumstances would the Supreme Court interfere with the

concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two lower courts.

40

FACTS:

The appellants were convicted for unlawfully killing one Camillus Abazie. P.W.2.

the sister of the deceased (Camillus Abazie) was the only eye witness at the scene

of the crime, she testified that the appellants along with some other armed men, be-

sieged her premises in the early hours of the 8th July, 1981 and upon entering they

45



shot and killed her brother in his sleep.

P.W.2. identified the 1st appellant as her ex-lover with whom she went out with

for six months, after which she terminated their relationship but on a bad note.

The identification was based on the voice of the 1st appellant which P.W.2 claimed

she recognised when the 1st appellant gave directions to the other men, she further

50



testified that she heard the 1st appellant refer to the 2nd appellant as "teacher'.

P.W.2 later escaped and hid herself in a shallow pit from where she could ob-

serve and hear part of what was going on in the house and she testified that she rec-

ognised both the 1st appellant and 2nd appellant, the 2nd appellant being a teacher

in her school and having once attempted to befriend her.

20

25