THE STATE V. RAPHAEL IFIOK SUNDAY (2019)

Background

This appeal concerned the murder conviction of Raphael Ifiok Sunday for the alleged killing of his father, Norbert Sunday, on or about 2 April 1996 at No. 81A Ikpa Road, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. The respondent was charged under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code and was convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court of Akwa Ibom State on 19 November 2007.

The prosecution’s case was substantially circumstantial. The respondent and the deceased lived in the same compound. The deceased was said to have been sick, to have consumed alcohol excessively, and to have previously complained of assaults and threats allegedly made by the respondent. The respondent had also allegedly accused his father of being a wizard and had threatened to kill him. On 6 April 1996, the respondent reported that he had not seen his father for several days. After a family inquiry and subsequent involvement of the village head and police, the respondent suggested that his father’s body might be in a pit toilet belonging to a relative’s landlady. The body was eventually recovered from that pit.

The respondent denied killing his father. He maintained that the deceased was a habitual drunkard and seriously ill, and might have fallen into the pit toilet. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted and discharged him. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the trial court wrongly applied the doctrine of last seen.
2. Whether the absence of medical evidence establishing the cause of death was fatal to the prosecution’s case in the circumstances.
3. Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution constituted cogent circumstantial evidence irresistibly pointing to the respondent’s guilt.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal. The doctrine of last seen may support a conviction where the accused was proved to be the last person seen with the deceased and the surrounding evidence formed an overwhelming, complete, and irresistible chain leading to the accused and no other person. However, the doctrine cannot be invoked merely because the accused lived with the deceased, reported the deceased missing, or later assisted in locating the body.

On the evidence, PW2 was the last person shown to have seen the deceased alive on 2 April 1996, when the deceased visited him. There was no evidence that the deceased returned home after that visit or that he was thereafter seen with the respondent. The trial court therefore made an unsupported finding when it concluded that the respondent was the person last seen with the deceased.

The Court also restated that medical evidence is desirable, but not invariably mandatory in a murder prosecution. The cause of death may be proved by other satisfactory and conclusive evidence, especially where death is instantaneous or the circumstances clearly establish the manner of death. In this case, however, the prosecution failed to establish when or how the deceased died, the nature of the fatal injury, or that the respondent caused the death. Given those evidential gaps, medical evidence was particularly important.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found several weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. A blood-stained shirt allegedly recovered from the deceased’s room was not tendered in evidence and was not subjected to forensic analysis. A handwritten note allegedly left by the deceased, stating that the respondent would be responsible if he died, was also not produced. The investigating police officer did not call the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination to explain the cause of death or the nature of any injuries.

Applying section 167(a) of the Evidence Act 2011, the Court held that a court may presume that evidence capable of being produced but withheld would, if produced, be unfavourable to the party withholding it. The failure to produce the note and shirt, and the failure to call the medical doctor, therefore weakened the State’s case rather than strengthening the inference against the respondent.

The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence may be as strong as, and sometimes stronger than, direct evidence. Nevertheless, it must be cogent, compelling, complete, and unequivocal. It must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to the accused’s guilt and must exclude reasonable possibilities that another person was responsible. Here, the evidence left several possibilities open, including the involvement or knowledge of other persons connected with the premises where the body was found, as well as the possibility that the deceased’s illness, intoxication, or physical condition contributed to his death.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 17 January 2013 was affirmed. Raphael Ifiok Sunday was acquitted and discharged of the charge of murdering his father.

Significance

The decision is significant for criminal trials based on circumstantial evidence. It confirms that the doctrine of last seen is not an automatic rule of guilt and cannot replace proof that the deceased was actually last seen with the accused. It also reinforces the constitutional and evidential requirement that every ingredient of murder must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a death sentence can be imposed. The prosecution must establish the death, the unlawful act or omission of the accused as its cause, and the requisite intention or knowledge. Where material exhibits are withheld and the evidence permits competing explanations, the resulting doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.