"My lords, it has been an old dictum in the English Law that even "the devil himself knoweth not the intention of a man" (per Bryan C. J. of the Medieval English Courts): Bowen L. J. in 1995, stated further that the state of a man's mind is much a fact as the state of his digestion. See: Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1985) 29. Ch.D. 459, at 483.
It is simple! lt is correct that no one is capable of seeing into another's mind and of being able to state with absolute certainty what is his intention. Only when a man himself confesses what it was he intended or foresaw do we come close to being sure of what it was, although even then, we may not be always certain, because we may misunderstand him, or he may consciously deceive us or unconsciously deceive himself as to what his real state of mind was. Be that as it may, we must, on a given situation, infer intention from the facts of any particular situation. Intention is not capable of positive proof, it can only be implied from overt acts: See: Setrena V. R. (1951) 13 WACA 132.
An intention to kill, for instance, may be inferable from the severity which a matchet blow is struck, as held in: R. V. Omori (1961) 1 AIINLR 33. An intention to prevent a document from being used as evidence, can be inferred from the deliberate destruction of the document. See: Okuyemi v. C.O.P. (1946) 12 WACA 3. Thus, it is the job of the Courts to get as close as possible to discovering, by such implication, what the accused himself intended. My lords, it is only through the facts and evidence laid, that we may come much closer to the real intent of the appellant and his cohorts in killing the deceased.
There is a finding by the trial Court that one Olusegun Olufowobi died, gruesomely murdered in the presence of his wife and children. The trial Court made further, the following findings, inter alia: "From the evidence adduced by the prosecution all the circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused persons. I disbelieve their evidence given in Court. 1st accused & 3rd accused claimed to have heard that someone was shot and they helped to take the victim (their church member - 2nd accused), 1st to police station, then to different hospitals and finally to Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife where they were eventually arrested while the 2nd accused claimed to have been shot by some cultists.
I believe that their evidence is a carefully, constructed concocted lies which cannot hold water. Again in the confessional statements of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused they clearly stated what happened on the day of the incident. See Exhibit "E" the Confessional Statement of 1st accused. See also Exhibit "G" and Exhibit "I" Confessional Statements of 2nd and 3rd accused respectively. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced on this 4th count i.e. murder charge, from the circumstantial evidence adduced and the confessional statements of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused, I find and hold 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused guilty of murder as charged."
In fact, it is the law that in appropriate cases, an accused person can properly be convicted on his or her confessional statement alone. Ojegele v. The State (1988) 1 NSCC 276. Although it is always preferable to have some evidence outside the confession in further proof of the offence, the absence of such additional proof would not necessarily prevent a Court from convicting on the confessional statement alone provided the statement satisfies other conditions such as being positive, direct and unequivocal. Queen v. Obiasa (1962) 1 All NLR 651. Furthermore, a careful look at the evidence of PW1 , as contained in the Record of Appeal, explicitly portrays an eye witness account of what transpired on the eventful day: "My children said they wanted tea; (l) went out and pour(ed) away the water I used to cook. I didn't lock the door. I just shut it. I suddenly heard banging on the door. When they entered the(y) asked for my husband, my husband had removed his uniform and was with his children. When they asked me I was shouting in Yoruba: "Segun Kilose" "Segun Kilose" meaning "Segun, what has he done" what has he done."
He must have heard my voice because I heard him trying to cock his gun. When I know he must have prepared, I replied them that he was inside. Two of them remained with me in the kitchen while one went inside and shot him. He also shot back at his assailant. only three people entered into the kitchen that night. The light from the sitting room extended to the kitchen so that I could clearly see..." From the above quoted evidence alone, which remains unchallenged, one can easily infer that the only purpose for entering into PW1's house was no other thing than to kill the deceased. This is what the Court below found as well:
"The evidence of PW1 before the lower Court is simple and straight forward. lt is that three persons, one of them armed with gun (and who the circumstantial evidence before the lower Court have established to be appellant and the other two persons charged along with him; and that it was the 2nd accused person that carried/held the gun) invaded the house wherein she lived with the deceased. These persons who were clearly not at PW1's house on a social visit asked for her husband, the deceased... PW1 never gave evidence that these persons asked her for anything or took anything away from her or from her house. The picture created by the evidence of PW1 or irresistible inference from her evidence, in my considered view, is that appellant and the two other accused persons were in her house on that day (i.e. 20/7/2011) to kill the deceased."
It is clear from the above that the primary aim of the appellant (if there was any hidden aim at all) was to kill and not rob PW1's husband. I am in total agreement with the Court below when it held, inter alia, that: "The picture created by the evidence of PW1 or irresistible inference from her evidence, in my considered view, is that appellant and the two other accused persons were in her house on that day (i.e. 20/7/2011) to kill the deceased."Per
MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. PETER v. STATE CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44357(SC)
