Right of Appellate Courts to Reevaluate Documentary Evidence

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 13th day of June, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Mohammed Lawal Garba

Adamu Jauro

Jummai Hannatu Sankey

Obande Festus Ogbuinya

Abubakar Sadiq Umar

Justices, Supreme Court

SC. 997/2016

Between

THE STATE                                                                                        APPELLANT                And

DANIEL  EDET  DANIEL                                                                        RESPONDENT                                                                                          

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Adamu Jauro, JSC

Facts

The Respondent and 4 others were arraigned before the High Court of Akwa Ibom State for the offence of murder, contrary to Section 326(1) of the Criminal Code, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000. The case of the Appellant as prosecution was that on 5th July, 2003 at about 10.00pm, the Respondent and his co-accused persons went to the house of one Okon Tom Akpan, who was a dry cleaner and deceived him into opening the door for them under the pretext that the 5th accused person wanted to collect his clothes, which he had given the deceased for dry cleaning. The Appellant alleged that once they gained access to the deceased’s house, they dragged him out and beat him to death, on the accusation that he planted juju in the compound of the 1st accused person’s father. Each of the accused persons, pleaded not guilty. At the conclusion of trial, the court found all five accused persons, including the Respondent who was the 2nd accused person, guilty of murder, and sentenced them all to death by hanging.

The Respondent protested his innocence, by filing an appeal before the Court of Appeal. After hearing the appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgement of the trial court, and discharged and acquitted the Respondent. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal relied primarily on the extra-judicial statements of the Respondent and the 1st accused person. The Court of Appeal found that the extra-judicial statements of the Respondent (Exhibits C and C1) were not confessional in nature, and in fact, disproved the case of murder against the Respondent, as the Respondent maintained therein that he was not part of those who battered the deceased to death, but had tried to intervene to stop the beating, and Exhibits B and B1 (the statement of the 1st accused person) corroborated the position of the Respondent, because the 1st accused person stated therein that the Respondent did not partake in beating the deceased, but rather came to the scene of the crime to try and prevent them from beating the deceased.

Dissatisfied with the turn of events at the Court of Appeal, the Appellant lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court.

Issue for Determination

After considering the issues submitted on both sides, the Supreme Court distilled a sole issue which it considered sufficient to capture the essence of the appeal:

 Whether from the circumstances of the case and the totality of the evidence adduced at trial, the lower court was right in its decision that the Appellant failed to establish the guilt of the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt, thereby setting aside the judgement of the trial court.

Arguments

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that all the elements of murder were proved against the Respondent, and that PW1 (the deceased’s sister-in-law) led uncontroverted eye witness evidence of the Respondent’s presence at the scene of the crime which established that he was one of those who killed the deceased. Counsel for the Appellant contended that it was the trial court that had the responsibility of evaluating evidence and ascribing probative value thereto, and that its decision that the evidence of PW1 was sufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the Respondent ought not to have been set aside. Relying on Section 7 of the Criminal Code, Counsel argued that the common intention of the Respondent and his co-accused persons to attack the deceased was proved by the evidence of PW1, and the Court of Appeal ought not to have gone further to distinguish the action of the Respondent from those of the other accused persons. Counsel submitted further that, every person who participated in the commission of an offence is as liable as a principal offender and urged the Court to allow the appeal, and restore the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the Respondent.

In response, Counsel for the Respondent argued that although the evidence led at trial established the death of the deceased, the Appellant failed to link his death to the Respondent. Counsel submitted that there was uncontroverted evidence before the court that the Respondent did not take part in the beating that led to the death of the deceased. He made reference to Exhibits B and B1 – the extra judicial statements of the 1st accused person (DW1) and submitted that, whilst DW1 mentioned those involved in the beating, he did not mention the Respondent as one of those who beat the accused, but rather, stated that the Respondent tried to prevent the other accused persons from doing so. Counsel argued that the Appellant’s reliance on Section 7 of the Criminal Code was unhelpful, in light of the statement of the 1st accused person that the Respondent only attempted to prevent the other accused persons from beating the deceased.

Counsel for the Respondent contended that, contrary to the argument of the Appellant, the Court of Appeal was in as good a position as the trial court to evaluate the statements of the Respondent and 1st accused person in Exhibits B, B1, C and C1, which are pieces of documentary evidence. He relied on UWEMEDIMO v M. P. (NIG) UNLIMITED (2011) 4 NWLR (PT. 1236). Counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal rightly re-evaluated the documentary evidence in Exhibits B, B1, C and C1, to arrive at a just decision.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

The Apex Court held that the essential elements of the offence of murder which the prosecution is required to prove in a case of murde ““…….. where it is found that a trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence before it, and the evaluation does not involve credibility of oral evidence, but rather involves inferences to be drawn from the evidence led, then an Appellate Court can rely on the printed record and documentary evidence in the record before it to re-evaluate the evidence and draw the appropriate inferences” r are: (i) That the death of a human being actually took place; (ii) That the death was caused by the accused person; (iii) That the act was done with the intention to cause death or that the accused person knew or had reason to know that death would be the probable, and not only the likely, consequence of his act. Relying on STATE v FAFURU LPELR-58482 (SC), the Court held that the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an accused person committed an offence, entails proving that he committed each of the elements of that offence, and failure to prove any of the elements will lead to the failure to establish the offence, even though an accused person may nevertheless be convicted for a lesser offence in appropriate circumstances.

The Supreme Court further held that the principle that an appellate court ought not to interfere with the assessment of evidence and ascription of probative value to evidence considered by the trial court, generally concerns oral evidence given by witnesses whose demeanour the trial court is required to observe and draw inferences from; and where, however, the evidence is documentary as in the instant appeal, the appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to assess and evaluate such evidence. The Court held that where it is found that a trial court fails to properly evaluate evidence before it, and the evaluation does not involve credibility of oral evidence, but rather involves inferences to be drawn from the evidence led, then an Appellate Court can rely on the printed record and documentary evidence in the record before it to re-evaluate the evidence and draw the appropriate inferences. The Court referred to its decision in NDUKWE v STATE (2009) LPELR-1979 (SC).

 The Supreme Court held that, it was beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased occurred, which settled the first element of the offence of murder; however, it was not enough for the prosecution to prove the first element, it must alongside establishing the death and the cause of the death of the deceased, establish a causal link between the action of the accused person and the death of the deceased.

The Supreme Court held that although the Appellant proved the presence of the Respondent at the scene of the crime, the contents of Exhibits B, B1, C and C1 that the Respondent only attempted to prevent the beating of the deceased, infected the case of the Appellant with reasonable doubt.

On the argument of the Appellant’s Counsel, that the Respondent’s conviction ought to have been sustained on the basis of common intention with the other accused persons to kill the deceased under Section 7 of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court held that  for a person present at the scene of a crime to be ensnared by Section 7 of the Criminal Code to render him liable for the offence, there must be unity of purpose or commonality of interest, and it must be established that the person did something that made it easier for the offence to be committed, such as facilitating, enabling, aiding or inciting the commission of the offence.

The Court further held that by Section 8 of the Criminal Code, for a person to be rendered liable for the commission of an offence under Sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code, there must be evidence from which it can be inferred that he formed a common intention with others to prosecute an unlawful purpose, which the act committed is a probable consequence of.

The Apex Court held that in the instant case, the evidence on record does not support the invocation of these Sections against the Respondent, as the evidence clearly showed that the Respondent did not partake in the beating of the deceased, neither was he shown to have done anything which made the task of the assailants easier. The Court held that the evidence rather revealed the opposite – that the Respondent tried to dissuade the other accused persons, albeit unsuccessfully, from beating the deceased, and this does not support the inference that a common intention was formed between the Respondent and the other accused persons.

The Apex Court held that it was clear that the trial court failed to properly evaluate Exhibits B, B1, C and C2, as a proper evaluation of these documents would have revealed to the trial court that the Respondent, though present at the scene of the crime, did not participate in the heinous crime; the Court of Appeal was therefore, right to have taken it upon itself to re-evaluate these pieces of documentary evidence and draw the proper inferences.

 On the whole, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal after a proper evaluation of the documentary evidence in the record before it, rightly arrived at the decision that the Appellant failed to prove the guilt of the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

Godwin Udom, Chief State Counsel, Ministry of Justice, Akwa-Ibom, for the Appellant.

O. F. Ekengba for the Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)