Appeal Court,
9th Aug. 1938. Appeal from
conviction by High Court.
Murder,
'Contra. sec. 310 Criminal
Code-Offence committed in heat of
clan affray, after appellant was
wounded and in which deceased's
clan was the aggressor.
Held: Facts
warranted reduction of offence to
manslaughter and
verdict
substituted accordingly.
There is no
need to set out the facts. C.
N. S. Pollard for Crown.
Appellant in person.
The following
joint judgment was delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J.,
NIGERIA, CAREY AND GRAHAM PAUl .•
, JJ.
In this case
the appellant was convicted in the
High Court at Ikot Ekpene of the
murder of one Sambo. Shortly the
facts are that there was a fight
between the Ediene clan, of which
the deceased was a member, and the
Minya clan, of which the appellant
is a member . The Edienes were the
actual aggressors in the fight. In
the fight the appellant was
wounded above the eye by an arrow,
the deceased was also wounded by a
matchet and fell. After the
deceased had fallen the appellant
ran up to him and inflicted upon
him a fatal wound with a matchet.
The learned trial Judge found as a
fact that the appellant did the
act " in his anger" in revenge for
his injury. The question which
arises is whether the homicide is
murder or should be reduced to
manslaughter on account of
provocation under section 318 of
the Criminal Code. The trial J
ud~e held it to be murder on the
ground that" the deceased,
himself, offered no provocation to
the accused personally." Upon this
point we feel bound to disagree
with the trial Judge. The
provocation consisted not merely
of the arrow wound, but of the
whole attack by the Edienes, of
whom the deceased was one. To
apply the real test, it is clear
that upon the facts disclosed the
deceased, if he had lived, could
have been properly prosecuted in
respect of the harm caused to the
appellant. He was therefore one of
those offering the provocation,
and there is no doubt that the
appellant committed the act whilst
still in the heat of passion
caused by this provocation.
For these
reasons we think that the offence
amounts to manslaughter only. A
verdict of guilty of manslaughter
is accordingly suhstituted for the
verdict of guilty of murder and in
substitution for the sentence of
death passed at the trial the
appellant is sentenced to two
years imprisonment with hard
labour.
|