Background
On 2006-12-31, Amechi Igenti was alleged to have attacked Shadrack Azawuno with fatal stab wounds at Iyamu Street, Benin City. After the incident, the victim was taken to hospital and pronounced dead. Igenti was arrested, charged with murder under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code and tried before the High Court of Edo State (Charge No. B/80C/2007). He pleaded not guilty, raised self-defence, and testified that a third party inflicted the fatal wound. The prosecution led six witnesses—two police officers, the victim’s siblings, an eyewitness (PW1), and a medical doctor—offered two confessional statements (Exhibits D and F) and a medical report (Exhibit B). The trial court convicted and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Court of Appeal (Benin Division Appeal No. CA/B/295C/2010) affirmed the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court (SC.454/2013).
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved all elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the confessional statements (Exhibits D and F) were properly admitted and free of contradiction.
- Whether the non-production of PW1’s extrajudicial statement triggers a presumption of unfavourable evidence.
- Whether the defences of self-defence, accident or provocation should have succeeded.
- Whether Supreme Court should disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi
- Concurrent findings of fact are binding absent perversity, material misdirection or miscarriage of justice.
- The prosecution must prove (a) death, (b) causation by the accused, and (c) intent beyond reasonable doubt.
- Presumption under Evidence Act §167(d) does not apply if accused fails to demand or tender the excluded statement at trial.
- Confessional statements are admissible if trial-within-trial proves voluntariness; contradiction is only material if it affects substantive elements.
- Defences of self-defence and provocation fail if no reasonable apprehension or grave sudden provocation is established.
Court Findings
On Proof of Murder
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution established all elements: the victim died from stab wounds inflicted by the appellant, proven by PW1’s eyewitness testimony and autopsy report (PW3). The causal link was clear, and intent was inferred from the appellant’s actions and statements (