- Flynote
- HR|Death penalty
Between
UGOCHUKWU OKEREKE
and
THE STATE
(DELIVERED BY OLU ARIWOOLA, JSC)
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Owerri division which was delivered on the if day of July, 2012,
The appellant and two others had been arraigned on a two count charge of conspiracy to murder and murder of one Cecilia Ogbonna, The said two count charge reads as follows:-
Count I
"'That you Uzoma Okereke, Ugochukwu Okereke and Chukwuma Ezekwe, on or about the 30th day of November, 2005, at Umuoguta Ndegwu in the Owerri West Magisterial District did conspire with one another to commit felony to wit: Murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Criminal Code Cap 77 Laws of the Federation Nigeria, 1990 as applicable to Imo state.
Count II
That you Uzoma Okereke, Ugochukwu Okereke and Chukwma Ezekwe on the same date and place at the aforesaid Magisterial District, did Murder one Cecilia Ogboona and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code Cap.77, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 as applicable to Imo State."
Upon being properly charged before the Imo State High Court, holden at Owerri, the three accused persons were tried, with the prosecution calling seven (7) witnesses and in defence five (5) witnesses were called all together Inclusive of the accused themselves. They were respectively found guilty as charged. They were convicted and each sentenced to death by hanging for the murder of Cecilia Ogbonna.
The facts of the case are as follows:-
The appellant and his brother, Uzoma Okereke living with their mother lived in the same neighbourhood with the deceased. Appellant's mother - one Ifeoma Okereke and the deceased were married to the same family, their respective husbands being first cousins. Indeed, a common wall separates the houses of both women. There was evidence that there was an unresolved dispute between the deceased and appellant's mother. The latter had accused the deceased of being responsible for the death of her son's dog, and had threatened that the deceased would also die the same way the dog had died.
PW1, one Grace Igwe, who is also married into the same family with the deceased had testified, that as she was returning from the market one day, she heard the deceased shouting, that someone had tampered with her electric wire and as she got closer to the house she saw the appellant's mother with one of her children, the 1st accused-Uzoma Okereke. Ifeoma had told her son to break the deceased head with a stick. However, in the early hours of the 30th November, 2005, she had gone to the deceased house but found the deceased in the pool of her blood with multiple injuries on her body. She was told by the deceased that the appellant and two others whose names she gave, inflicted the injuries on her. The injuries she sustained had led to her death in the hospital.
In defence, the appellant denied ever inflicting any injury on the deceased but stated that there was an armed robbery incident in their neighbourhood. Their own house was said to have been attacked by the said armed robbers who not only robbed their mother - Ifeoma of the sum of N30,000.00 but also inflicted injuries on her as well. And that the same armed robbers must have attacked the deceased.
At the close of the trial, the judge believed the story of the Prosecution and disbelieved the defence. In his considered judgment delivered on the 31st day of March, 2009, the trial Judge found the appellant and others guilty and convicted them. Each of them was sentenced to death by hanging.
The appellant and others were dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, hence they jointly appealed to the court below. In a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal, the appeal was dismissed leading to the instant appeal by the appellant. The court below had affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Further dissatisfied, the appellant had appealed on two grounds contained in his Notice of Appeal filed on the 31st day of July, 2012.
Upon settlement of record, counsel filed and exchanged briefs of argument and this appeal was heard on the 5th day of November, 2015. The learned counsel for the appellant adopted and relied on the appellant's brief of argument which was settled by L M. Alozie, Esq. filed on 5th August, 2013, He urged the court to allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court below which had affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He finally urged the court to discharge and acquit the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent also adopted and relied on the respondent's brief of argument earlier settled by Mrs C.C. Dimkpa, filed on 21st November, 2013 but deemed as properly filed and served on 18th February, 2015,
In the appellant's brief of argument, the appellant had distilled a sole issue for determination from the two grounds of appeal earlier filed. The said issue reads thus:
"Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt"
In arguing the sole issue formulated for determination of the appeal, learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW1 and PW3 and contended that it is evident that the incident of inflicting injuries on the deceased happened between the deceased and her assailants only, without any eye witness. He contended further that from the testimony of PW1, who went to the deceased's house with her lantern, that there was no light in the deceased's room or premises and the fact that the incident took place at about 1.00a.m.
Learned counsel submitted that the testimony of PW1 as to what the deceased told her did not sufficiently identify the appellant and his co-accused persons as the assailants of the deceased. He contended that with the material contradictions in the testimony of both PW1 and PW3 on the position of the door to the deceased's room and when each of them arrived her house in the early hours of the day of the incident, the court ought not to believe them and ought to have discountenanced their testimony. He cited, Jeremiah Vs. State (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt.1320) 253.
Learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW2 - Police Constable - Osuagwu Samson and that of PW5 and PW6 as to how the deceased was moved to the Federal Medical Centre, Owerri and contended that the court ought to have rejected their testimony. He referred to Exhibit A, the Statement which was said to have been obtained from the deceased in her hospital bed by the police.
Learned counsel contended that the appellant was made the second accused person that was tried for the murder of the deceased because it was alleged that the deceased has mentioned his name as one of the persons who attacked her in the early hours of the 30th November, 2005. Learned counsel further contended that notwithstanding the fact that PW1, PW3 and PW6 claimed to have been told by the deceased that three persons attacked her including the appellant, yet another person by the same name with the appellant was first taken to the hospital to be identified despite Exhibit A that was said to have been obtained from the deceased. He conceded that the appellant was later arrested by PW6 and PW7 after the deceased had told them that the Ugochukwu that was first arrested was not the one she said was one of those who attacked her.
Learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW6 to the effect that the deceased was first unconscious after the attack but later gained consciousness before her statement was obtained. He had compared the testimony of PW6 with that of PWl, PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW7 on the state of consciousness of the deceased and came to the conclusion that their testimony ought not to have been believed by the court. He urged the court to discountenance their testimony. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was not the Ugochukwu the deceased had mentioned in her statement - Exhibit A, but that he was framed up into the case on the basis of suspicion and the strained relationship between the deceased and the appellant's mother.
Learned counsel contended that there was no credible evidence identifying the appellant or indeed any other person as the person that inflicted the injuries on the deceased.
Learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW4 under cross examination and the report of his autopsy which was admitted as Exhibit B. He contended that there were contradictions on the date the deceased died. He urged the court to resolve the divergence of opinion in favour of the appellant. He cited Ekang Vs. State (2001) NWLR (Pt.723) 1 at 6.
Learned counsel referred to the statement said to have been made by the deceased to PW2 - Exhibit A and contended that Exhibit A was so self contradictory and manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal can act on it.
Learned counsel referred to the testimony of DW1, DW2 and DW5 on the issue of armed robbery attack on the appellant's family. He contended that from the testimony of PW5 also on the armed robbery incident, there was already a reasonable doubt created by the evidence as to who inflicted the injuries sustained on the deceased. He submitted that when taken holistically, the case of the prosecution had created so much gap and so many questions unanswered that the reasonable doubt created ought to have been resolved in favour of the appellant and others.
Learned counsel further submitted that with the issue of armed robbery incident, the court ought to have considered it as a defence put up by the appellant but the court did not consider the defence, in particular, the court below on appeal from the trial court.
Learned counsel submitted that there were so much loose ends and contradictions in the case presented by the prosecution that the court below ought to have allowed the appeal and discharge and acquit the appellant.
Learned counsel referred to the ingredients the prosecution must prove before a conviction for murder can be secured by the prosecution. He cited Ochiba Vs. The State (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt, 1277) 663 and Jeremiah Vs. State (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt.1320) 254. And that a charge of murder will be established only when the prosecution prove all the said required ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that where there are material contradictions in vita! issues on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the trial court should upon a proper evaluation of the evidence adduced refrain from returning a verdict of guilt of the accused. He cited Akindipe Vs State (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt.1111) 560.
Learned counsel submitted that the entire evidence of all the prosecution witnesses amount to hearsay because none of them was an eye witness of the attack on the deceased. He contended that even though there may be suspicion against the appellant and some members of his family, that suspicion, he submitted, was not enough to secure conviction.
Learned counsel referred to Exhibit A as the Statement the deceased was said to have made to the police and contended that the statement did not meet the requirements of a Statement to qualify as a dying declaration as required by the Evidence Act. He submitted that based on the decisions of this court, for a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence, there must be proof that the deceased when making it believed himself to be in danger of approaching death. He cited, Okoro Vs, State (2012) 4 NWLR (Ptl290) 351, Otuskpor Okafor Vs The State (1967) NMLR 189. And that in the absence of hopeless expectation of death, such a statement will be mere hearsay and inadmissible.
Learned counsel submitted that the purported dying declaration in this case in Exhibit A is a concoction by PW1 which she sold to other prosecution witnesses based on mere suspicion. He submitted that suspicion no matter how strong cannot ground a conviction, relying on State Vs. Ogunbanjo (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 698) 576.
Learned counsel referred to the evidence of PW1 to PW7 as to what the deceased told them relating to the cause of her death as merely hearsay and is inadmissible. He contended that apart from Exhibit A, there is no evidence before the court which can qualify as res gestae in a dying declaration. He submitted that there is no legal ground to sustain the conviction of the appellant. He submitted further that the prosecution failed woefully to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the court of Appeal, Owerri Division delivered on 11/07/2012 and in its stead enter a judgment in favour of the appellant, discharge and acquit him.
As I stated earlier, the respondent in its brief of argument adopted the sole issue formulated for determination by the appellant.
In arguing the said issue, learned counsel referred to the essential elements the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, in a murder trial. He cited Kaza Vs. The State (2008) 7 NW|LR (Pt.1085) 125 at 163; P.C.O. Oludamilola Vs. The State (2010) 181 LRCN 1 at 16 & 17.
He contended that in proving the required elements, the prosecution may rely on direct eye witness account of the incident or circumstantial evidence. He cited Mustapha Mohammed & Anor Vs The State (2007) 153 LRCN 110 at 125; Adio Vs. The State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.24) 581.
Learned counsel in arguing further took the first and third elements of the three elements the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction on a charge of murder.
First, that the death of a human being has actually taken place and secondly that the act was done with the intention to cause death or that the accused knew that death should be the probable and not only the likely consequence of his act. He submitted that the prosecution, through the evidence of PW4 and Exhibit B proved that Cecilia Ogbonna had died. He referred to the testimony of PW4 - the Medical Doctor who had performed the autopsy or post mortem examination on the deceased. That the body of the deceased was identified to him for the autopsy by Chief Ferdinand Ukawuike after which he produced Exhibit B.
Learned counsel contended that there is evidence that the act was done with the intention to cause death or that the accused knew or had reason to know that death should be the probable and not only the likely consequence of his act. He referred to the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the age of the deceased which was put at 60 years and that the deceased was living alone in her house. He further referred to the statement of the deceased - Exhibit A, the autopsy Exhibit B, which described the type of beating mete out to the deceased and the injury sustained.
Learned counsel contended that intent to kill can be inferred from the nature of the weapon used and the wound inflicted. He referred to the autopsy report and the testimony of PW4 which was unchallenged and uncontradicted. He submitted that with the type of injury inflicted on the deceased, the sole intention of the assailant was to cause death as a natural consequence, as a man intends the natural consequence of his act. He cited Nwokearu Vs The State (2013) All FWLR (Pt.689) 1040 at 1065.
Learned counsel contended that where a human being is wounded and he dies as a result of that injury sustained, within a year and one day, the accused is deemed to have killed the deceased. He referred to Section 314 of the Criminal Code and the evidence adduced, that the attack on the deceased took place on 30th November, 2005 and the victim was immediately taken to the Federal Medical Centre, Owerri where she died on the 4th of December, 2005. He submitted that the death of the deceased was as a result of the injuries she sustained from the attack on her in the early hours of the 30th November, 2005.
Learned counsel then moved to the second element, that death of the deceased was caused by the accused person. In proving this fact, the prosecution is expected to prove the identity of the accused person(s). In establishing this, learned counsel referred to the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 and Exhibit A. He contended that from the evidence adduced, the prosecution has been consistent in the identity of the attackers and it was not in any way debunked under cross examination.
Learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW1, in particular, on the threat to kill the deceased by the appellant and his mother, which testimony was not challenged or controverted under cross examination. He submitted that where a party fails to cross examine a witness under cross examination on any issue raised in the evidence in-chief, he is deemed to have accepted the truth of the witness's evidence in-chief. He cited Patrick Oforlette Vs The State (2000) FWLR (Pt.12) 2081. He submitted that the court is entitled and indeed bound to accept evidence unchallenged under cross examination provided such evidence by its nature is not incredible.
Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution successfully proved the identity of the appellant as one of the people who attacked the deceased in the early hours of 30th November, 2005, and inflicted injuries on her which injuries caused her death on 4th December, 2005,
Learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW1, PW3 and PW7 on what the deceased told each of them, that the appellant was one of those who had attacked and inflicted injuries on her. And contended that the evidence was not successfully debunked under cross examination.
He referred to the defence put up by the appellant, which was that there was an armed robbery incident where his family was attacked and his mother was robbed of her N30,000.00. He referred to the statement made by the appellant which was admitted as Exhibit D, his oral testimony and the testimony of his mother, - DW1, on the robbery incident. He also referred to the statement of DW1, Exhibit C.
From the evidence of the alleged robbery incident, learned counsel contended that the whole story was concocted by the appellant to mislead the court.
Learned counsel referred to the testimony of the appellant that the deceased had died before the policemen came to her house. But in the statement made to the police - Exhibit D, the appellant had stated inter alia, that "when the police came, the woman was taken to the hospital for treatment "
Learned counsel referred to Exhibit A, the statement made by the deceased to the police on her sick bed in the hospital where she clearly identified the appellant and the co-accused and mentioned their names. He submitted that from the evidence, it was clear that the deceased was conscious and alive at the hospital when she made her statement to the police. He submitted that the deceased recognized her attackers who thought she was dead and took to their heels but she regained consciousness and gave out their names, inclusive of the appellant, first to PW1 who first got to her room after the attack.
Learned counsel again referred to the defence put up by the appellant that there was an armed robbery attack on his family and the deceased but no other person or family was attacked in the neighbourhood. But worthy of note was the fact that the said alleged armed robbery incident was not reported to the police neither was his mother, who was allegedly wounded, taken to the hospital. He submitted that the story of armed robbery incident on the day in question was a pre-meditated concocted story and a ruse to cover the heinous act of the appellant and his family.
Learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW6 on the appellant's mother's story of armed robbery attack on her and how she was wounded and robbed of N30,000.00 but that she did not report to the police. On investigation, she was found to be faking the wound on her head as, upon the police's removal of the bandage she had on, there was no wound at all on her head. Learned counsel contended that PW6 was not challenged and not controverted on this under cross examination.
Learned counsel referred to the testimony of PW7, the Chairman of Vigilante group of Ndegwu people, who stated that there was no robbery incident in that neighbourhood on the day in question. He submitted that there was no contradiction that there was no incident of armed robbery as alleged by the defence.
On the alleged discrepancy on the date the deceased died as stated on the doctor's report- Exhibit B, learned counsel submitted that there was no discrepancy at all. He contended that the courts below rightly concerned themselves with what was the main issue in the case. He contended further that the main issue was whether the deceased, before she died made the statement in Exhibit A and gave the name of the appellant and his co-accused as those who attacked her and inflicted the injuries on her.
Learned counsel submitted that the two courts below amply considered this important issue and correctly came to the concurrent decision that Exhibit A was made by the deceased before her death and the courts found the statement to be a dying declaration in accordance with Section 33 (1) (a) of the Evidence Act.
He finally submitted that the court below was right in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant earlier handed down by the trial court which rightly found that the prosecution proved its case against the appellant as charged beyond reasonable doubt. He urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the court below.
As earlier indicated in this judgment, the appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Owerri division which had dismissed the appeal of three convicts whom the trial court had earlier sentenced to death by hanging for the murder of Cecilia Ogbonna.
The appellant herein with his elder brother-Uzoma Okereke and another neighbour - Chukwuma Ezekwe were charged with an offence of murder. They were tried, found guilty and convicted as charged. This court had earlier dealt with the appeal of the appellant's elder brother as a co-Convict - Uzoma Okereke, The judgment was delivered on 22nd day of January, 2016. His appeal was found unmeritorious and was accordingly dismissed.
The instant appeal is against the same judgment of the court below which dismissed the joint appeal of the three convicts that were respectively sentenced.
Generally, and it is already established in our criminal justice system that in a charge of murder, the prosecution has the burden to prove certain elements or ingredients of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. These are:-
* That a human being has died;
That the death of the deceased was actually caused by the accused; and
That the accused intended to either kill the victim or cause him grievous harm which resulted to death.
See; Fancis Durwode Vs The State (2000) 12, SC (Pt. l); Akpan Vs State (2001) 7 SC (Pt.ll) 29; (2001) FWLR (Pt.56) 7351; Idemudia Vs State (1999} 5 SC (Pt.ll) 110; (2001} FWLR (Pt.55) 549 at 564; Sabina C Madu Vs The State (2012) 6 SCNJ 129; (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt.1324) 405; (2012) 50 NSQR 67; (2012) 6 SC (Pt.l) 80.
Before I proceed further in this judgment, I consider it pertinent to state that certain facts were never disputed as they were clearly alluded to by both parties in their testimony and therefore they stand established and require no further proof. See; Olale Vs, Ekwelendu (1989) 7 SCNJ (Pt.2) 62 at 1021, Ndayako Vs Dantoro (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt.889) 1871; (2004) 18 NSCQR 646; Ehinlanwo Vs. 01 u sol a Oke & Anor (2008) 10 SCM 28; (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt.113) 357; (2008) 6-7 SC (Pt.ll) 123; Titiloye Vs. Olupo (1991) 9-10 SCNJ 122..
The said facts include:
The fact that one Cecilia Ogbonna was attacked in her room in the early hours of 30th November, 2005.
That the said Cecilia Ogbonna eventually died as a result of the injuries she sustained from the attack by her assailants.
That the deceased, Cecilia Ogbonna and the appellant and his family including her mother - Ifeoma Okereke lived within the same neighbourhood. Indeed, their respective houses were separated only by a walk
That there was an unresolved boundary dispute between the deceased and appellant's mother.
There is no doubt that the prosecution was not expected to prove any longer, the above facts that were either clearly admitted or not denied or disputed by the appellant. In other words, ordinarily in a murder charge, as the instant, the prosecution owes it a duty and burden to discharge during trial by establishing the death of the victim of the alleged act, that the accused was responsible by act or omission, intentional or otherwise, to the knowledge of the accused and that the act or omission could cause grievous harm or death. Indeed, the prosecution must prove that the act or omission actually caused death but not that it could have caused death. See; Ubanu & Ors Vs. State (2004) FWLR (Pt.191); 1533 at 1546; Godwin Igabele Vs State (2006) 3 SCM 143 at 146; Elewo Agbogede Vs, State (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt.448); 270.
In this case, in order to discharge the burden on it, the prosecution during trial called seven (7) witnesses while the appellant in defence testified and called other four (4) witnesses including the co-accused.
To prove that a human being had died in connection with the charge of murder in the instant, the prosecution called PW4, Dr. Raphael Egejuru, a Medical Practitioner and a Lecturer at the Imo State University, who teaches in the specialty of Pathology and works with the Federal Medical Centre, Owerri, The corpse of the victim was identified to him by Chief Ferdinand Ukawike as that of Cecilia Ogbonna. He testified that he performed post mortem examination on the body of the deceased on the 20th December, 2005, analyzing the tissues and body fluids taken out from surgical operation. After the autopsy, he reduced his findings into writing, Exhibit B. His findings, inter alia, is as follows:-
" there are two separate cuts on the right side of the scalp measuring 9cm and 6cm respectively with associated bleedings under the scalp. Also subdural harmorrage with cecibella tunisilla herniation and grooving under the scalp. Also there were extensive bruises of the muscles around the clavide (right) and scapula region."
In his opinion further testifying, PW4 gave the cause of death to be "traumatic and hemorrhagic shock due to soft tissue injuries and subdural hamorrage with associated conning consequent upon plunt injury to the head." In his opinion, these injuries on the deceased could not have been self inflicted.
There is no doubt that the death of a human being, in particular, the death of the victim of the alleged murder was established by the prosecution.
The other two elements that required to be proved were that the death of the deceased - Cecilia Ogbonna was caused by the appellant and that he and the others intended to kill the victim or cause her grievous harm which resulted to her death. To establish these elements, the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW1, Grace Igwe, PW2, then Police Constable Osuagwu Sampson, PW3, Chijioke Awurum, PW5 - a Police Officer - Opara Dennis, one of the policemen that investigated the case; PW6 CpL Oruke Wenekefe also a police Officer and PW7 -Christian Akowumobi, the Chairman of the Vigilante Group of Ndegwu people. But mostly, the prosecution relied on the statement of the deceased made to the police on her sick bed which was admitted without objection and marked Exhibit A.
From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, PW1 testified that she knows the appellant and the deceased very well, both of them having come from the same neighbourhood. Indeed, the deceased and herself were married to the same family. Their husbands being first cousins. She was aware of the hostility between the appellant's mother and the deceased, including the allegation against the deceased, by the appellant's mother that, the deceased killed her son's dog. PW1 testified further as follows:-
"On 29th November, 2005 by 5.30p.m, when returned from market, the said Cecilia showed me her wrapper which had been cut. She said she would burn it and I advised her not to burn the cloth, I advised her to go that I would come to her in the morning for us to have joint prayer. I went to her in the morning a few minutes past five o'clock, I was carrying my lantern. It was Wednesday 30th November, 2005, On getting close to her house, I heard some noise made by her. The noise was the noise of somebody who was in pains
As I went into her room I observed that my legs were matching on her blood on the floor. I raised the lantern and saw that her head had multiple injuries and blood all over her body. The body was bare. She was not wearing any blouse. I asked her what happened and she said that it was one Uzoma and Ugochukwu his brother and a tenant in Innocent's house who were responsible for the wounds that they had executed their threats that they would kill her. The three accused persons are the people the deceased said were responsible for her death. After this I ran outside and raised alarm which attracted peoples' attention,"
Under cross examination by the appellant's counsel, the witness testified that she was in good terms with Ifeoma Okereke, the appellant's mother and her children. That even her own last child often visited Ifeoma's house. That she was returning from the market on the day in question when she heard Ifeoma's voice and she rushed to the scene. It was then she heard Ifeoma told the deceased that she would die like their dog. And the appellant's brother - Uzoma Okereke then told the deceased that he would kill her even before her children would arrive from Lagos.
Further testifying under cross examination, the witness was categorical that there was no armed robbery attack or incident in their neighbourhood or anywhere in the village on the day in question.
PW2 a Police Constable - Osuagwu Sampson testified as one of the policemen who visited the appellant's family house after the complaint against him and others of having wounded the deceased on 30 November, 2005. On getting to the house, neither the appellant nor his brother was in the house. Only the mother was in the house and she said she did not know the whereabout of her children including the appellant.
The policemen later visited the deceased's house but discovered that she had been moved to the hospital. They then went straight to the hospital where they obtained her statement. Indeed, as the only Igbo man of same tribe with the deceased, he obtained her statement. The statement of the deceased was tendered through the witness and when there was no objection it was admitted and marked Exhibit A.
Under cross examination, PW2 in response to the question posed by the defence counsel, had stated that the content of Exhibit A was what the deceased had told him which he recorded and read over to her and she confirmed that it was correct. She appended her right thumb impression on Exhibit A.
PW3 was also a neighbour to the appellant's family and the deceased. He testified that the deceased told him that the appellant and two others, that he mentioned, inflicted the injur