"Both sides agree, and rightly too, that to prove the offence of murder for which the appellant is convicted the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:- (a) The death of the deceased. (b) The act or omission of the accused which caused death and (c) That the act or omission was intentionally done with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm will ensue. See Dare Jimoh V. The State (2014) LPELR-22464 (SC) and Ugochukwu V. State (2016) LPELR-40012 (SC).
Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. in MR. SUNDAY IKENNE v. THE STATE (2018) LPELR-44695(SC)
SUMMARY
FACTS:
The appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division.
The appellant and three others were arraigned before the trial Court for the murder of one IFEANYICHUKWU UDECHUKWU contrary to Section 274(1) of the Criminal Code Cap 36 Vol. 2 Revised Laws of Anambra State 1991. The four pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. The prosecution called six witnesses while each of the four accused gave evidence in his own defence. Three other witnesses also testified on behalf of the accused persons. At the end of trial including final addresses of counsel, the Court on the 19th November 2012 delivered its judgment discharging the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused persons but convicting and sentencing the appellant as charged.
The appeal is against the dismissal of the appellant's appeal against the trial Court's judgment by the Court of Appeal in its decision dated 14th November 2014.
INCONSISTENCY RULE: When is the inconsistency rule applicable
"It is pertinent to stress that for the inconsistency rule to apply, PW2 and PW3, must be seen to have failed, on being confronted with their earlier contradictory statements in the course of their oral testimony, to explain away the inconsistencies which, again, must be fundamental. lt follows, therefore, that the rule will neither apply if they were not confronted with the earlier contradictory statements in the course of their oral testimony or, having been confronted, they had given sufficient reasons or explanations for the inconsistencies in the earlier statements and subsequent oral evidence. See Jizurumba V. State (19760 NSCC (Vol. 10) 156, Egboghonone V. State (1993) 9 SCNJ 1."
Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.
