DAPO DAGE V. THE STATE (2019)

Background

Dapo Dage was arraigned before the High Court of Ondo State on a one-count charge of murder contrary to section 316 and punishable under section 319 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 30, Vol. II, Laws of Ondo State, 1978. The prosecution alleged that the appellant stabbed the deceased in the chest with a knife, causing injuries which resulted in the deceased’s death. At trial, the prosecution called four witnesses and tendered four exhibits, including the appellant’s extra-judicial statement, admitted as Exhibit P1, and a post-mortem report, Exhibit P4.

The appellant pleaded not guilty but testified in his own defence without calling any other witness. He relied principally on a defence of alibi and challenged the prosecution’s case. The trial court found that Exhibit P1 was a voluntary and truthful confession in which the appellant admitted stabbing the deceased. The medical evidence and testimony of the prosecution witnesses were considered consistent with the confession. The trial court consequently convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death.

The Court of Appeal, Akure Division, affirmed the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, that the lower courts improperly relied on a retracted confessional statement, and that his defence of alibi had not been investigated. He also raised a jurisdictional complaint, although the respondent argued that the complaint was not supported by a proper ground of appeal and had not been raised at the appropriate stage.

Issues

1. Whether, having regard to the totality of the evidence, the prosecution proved the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the courts below were entitled to rely on the appellant’s confessional statement, despite his later attempt to resile from it.
3. Whether the defence of alibi, raised for the first time during trial, required investigation by the police.
4. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and the Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, in the lead judgment delivered by Nweze JSC, held that the prosecution must establish three essential ingredients of murder under section 316 of the Criminal Code: first, that the deceased died; secondly, that the death was caused by the accused; and thirdly, that the accused intended to kill the deceased or cause him grievous bodily harm. The Court held that all three ingredients had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court reaffirmed that a confession is the best form of evidence in a criminal trial. Where a confessional statement is direct, positive, voluntary and unequivocal, and the trial court is satisfied that it is truthful, a conviction may properly be based on it, even where the accused subsequently retracts or denies the confession. Exhibit P1 directly connected the appellant with the stabbing, while the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the post-mortem report provided supporting circumstances concerning the injury and cause of death.

On alibi, the Court held that an accused person who wishes to rely on that defence must raise it at the earliest opportunity, preferably in the extra-judicial statement, and must provide clear and specific particulars of his whereabouts and the persons who were with him. Only a prompt and unequivocal alibi imposes a duty on the prosecution to investigate. Since the appellant first raised the alibi during his testimony at trial and did not provide adequate particulars at the investigative stage, the prosecution was under no obligation to investigate it. The defence was therefore properly discountenanced.

The Court also reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal unless they are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, occasion a miscarriage of justice, or result from a violation of legal or procedural principles. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such defect.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court accepted the concurrent findings that the deceased suffered a stab injury to the chest and died from internal bleeding caused by that injury. The Court considered the post-mortem report consistent with the appellant’s confession and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It further held that the use of a knife and the deliberate stabbing of the deceased in the chest permitted the inference of an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

The Court observed that Exhibit P1 had been tendered and admitted without objection. Although the appellant later attempted to challenge its effect, the lower courts had evaluated the circumstances in which it was made and found it voluntary and reliable. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb that evaluation. The appellant’s jurisdictional and procedural complaints were also rejected or treated as incompetent because they had not been properly raised at the relevant stage.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the appellant’s conviction for murder and the sentence imposed by the High Court of Ondo State.

Significance

This decision reinforces important principles of Nigerian criminal law and evidence. It confirms the statutory ingredients that must be proved in a murder prosecution and illustrates that medical evidence is not indispensable where credible direct or circumstantial evidence otherwise establishes death and its cause. More importantly, it restates the evidential strength of a voluntary, direct and unequivocal confession under section 29 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The case also demonstrates that an alibi cannot be raised vaguely or belatedly as a mere trial strategy; it must be disclosed with sufficient particulars to enable investigation. Finally, the decision underscores the strong appellate reluctance to interfere with concurrent findings of fact where those findings are supported by credible evidence and no miscarriage of justice has been shown.