Appeal from
conviction by the High Court.
Murder
contra section 319 of the
Criminal Code-Failure to
1'dentify body fatal to
conviction.
Held: (I)
Failure to identify the body
examined by a medical witness as
the one found by other witnesses
is fatal to a conviction.
(2) The fact
that the wife of an accused
person called by the Crown is
sworn on the Koran and
presumably a Mohammedan is not
sufficient to show she was not
the wife of a monogamous
marriage. That fact should be
definitely given in evidence.
The facts are
sufficiently set out in the
judgment:
I. F.
Cameron for 1st Appellant.
O. O. Alakija for 2nd
Appellant.
D. Hagley
for Crown.
The appeal
was allowed on the 17th January,
1940 and on the 23rd January,
1940 the following joint reasons
for judgment were delivered :-
KINGDON,
c.]., NIGERIA, BUTLER LLOYD AND
CAREY, JJ.
The
appellants in this case were
convicted by Ames, Assistant
Judge, sitting in the High Court
of the Ibadan Division 'of the
murder of an unknown woman at
Oyo.
Shortly the
facts are that the body of an
unknown woman was found about 11/2
miles from Lunku. The
Sergeant of the Native
Administration police who was
sent to get it described it as
on the road lying on its back"
there was a wound on front of
head, another wound on cheek"
The Native Administration
policeman who was first sent to
the spot says the corpse was
naked and had a cut on forehead
and left arm and right cheek.
Another man named Elekuru who
went with the Native
Administration Sergeant and
policeman describes the body as
smelling, with wound on forehead
and both cheeks and left arm and
private part; the three men
mentioned took the body to the
Adeoyo hospital. This was on the
15th July, 1939.
On the same
date Dr. Dale, Medical Officer
in charge of the hospital, held
a post mortem there on an
unknown woman, but he did not
know who brought in the body on
which he performed the post
mortem. The results of his
examination are given in his
evidence thus-::-
" There
were wounds on both cheeks each
about three inches long and a
wound on the forehead about six
inches long with an extensive
fracture of the bone beneath it.
A large piece of bone had been
driven into the brain from this
wound on the forehead and the
brain was extensively damaged.
In my opinion this injury was
the cause of death."
As a result
of investigation by the Native
Administration police the two
appellants were arrested and
charged with the murder of the
unknown woman whose body was
found on the road. As already
recorded they were convicted and
sentenced to death.
There is a
number of highly unsatisfactory
points in this case, of which
the most striking is the failure
to identify the body examined by
the Doctor as the. one found by
the Crown witnesses. The learned
Trial Judge saw this difficulty
and refers to it at length in
his judgment and even describes
the' point as one of importance.
Our only comment on this is that
we think the point was not only
important but was vital. Without
the medical evidence we can find
nowhere in the record any
sufficient evidence to prove
that the death of the woman
whose body was found by the
Crown witnesses was due to
violence. The prosecution thus
failed to prove one of the
essential matters which must be
proved before a conviction for
murder can result, and on this
ground alone the convictions
could' not be' allowed to stand.
Apart" from this fatal defect in
the evidence, short reference
may be made to some of the other
unsatisfactory features of the
case.
First of all
the investigation by the Native
Administration police appears to
have been most inadequate. They
seem to have been more concerned
'with extracting confession from
the accused than in making
genuine investigations. It is
almost inconceivable that the'
identity of the deceased woman
could not have been established
by proper enquiries.
Another point
is that much unsatisfactory
evidence was given as ~o the
"alleged mutilation of the
private parts of the corpse.
Elekuru (videsupra)
speaks of seeing a wound on the
part, but the two police
witnesses who were with him do
not do so. In this connection
the Native Administration police
alleged a confession by the
first appellant that he had
removed the private parts for
the purpose of juju-thus a
motive for the crime was
provided. The Trial Judge quite
rightly found that it was not
proved that the body was
mutilated by removal of some
part of the private part. In
this connection it is worth
noting that the Doctor makes no
mention of finding signs of
mutilation of the private parts
of the body on which he held a
post mortem. This indicates one
of three things, namely either
that the body which he examined
was not the body of the woman of
whose murder the appellants were
convicted, or that his
examination was inadequate, or
that some of the police evidence
is concocted. In any event the
matter is left without any
satisfactory explanation.
Another unsatisfactory feature
of the case is thus referred to
by the Trial Judge-