The essential elements or ingredients that constitute the offence are: (1) The death of a human being; (2) That the death of the deceased resulted from the act/s of the person accused. (3) That the act/s of the person accused was/were intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.
– M.L. Garba JCA. Odogwu v. Vivian (2009) – CA/PH/345/05
SHARE ON
The law has been long established in a legion of judicial authorities that before an Accused person can be convicted for the offence of murder, the prosecution is duty bound to prove the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt: a) That the deceased died; b) That it was the unlawful act or omission of the Appellant which caused the death of the deceased; and c) That the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.
– Adamu Jauro, JSC. Enabeli v. State (2021)
In a charge of murder such as the one under discourse, the prosecution must lead credible evidence to establish the essential elements of the offence which are the following: (a) That the deceased had died. (b) That the death of the deceased was caused by the accused person and (c) That the act or omission of the accused person which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was a probable consequence.
– M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Enabeli v. State (2021)
In Lori v. State (1980) 8-11 SC 81 at 95-96, this court per Nnamani, JSC said: “In a charge of murder, the cause of death must be established unequivocally and the burden rests on the prosecution to establish this and if they fail the accused must be discharged. See Rex v. Samuel Abengowe 3 WACA 85; R v. Oledima 6 WACA 202. It is also settled law that the death of the victim must be caused by the act of the accused or put differently it must be shown that the deceased died as a result of the act of the accused. See Sunday Omonuju v. The State (1976) 5 SC 1, Frank Onyenankeya v. The State (1964) NMLR. 34.”
“Generally, in a murder charge, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following:- (1) That the deceased died. (2) That it was the unlawful act or omission of the accused person which caused the death of the deceased, and (3) That the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. The prosecution can rely on direct eye witness account or by circumstantial evidence. The prosecution can even prove same by the confession of the accused. See Kaza v The State (2008) 7 NWLR (pt 1085) 125, Akinlolu v The State (2015) LPELR 25986 (SC), Ogedengbe v The State (2014) 12 NWLR (pt 1421) 338, Durwode v The State (2000) 15 NWLR (pt 691) 467.”
— J.I. Okoro, JSC. State v Ifiok Sunday (2019) – SC.709/2013
Be that as it may, however, it is now well settled that as much as medical evidence is desirable to prove the cause of death in homicide cases, it is not a sine quo non. It has been laid down in a long line of cases that cause of death can be established by sufficient evidence. other than medical evidence, showing beyond reasonable doubt that death resulted from the particular act of the accused. See Akpuenya v. The State (1976) 11 S.C. 269, 278. In Lori v. The State (1980) 8-11 S.C. 81 at 97.
— Ogundare, JSC. Azu v State (1993) – SC. 131/1992
In a charge of murder the cause of death of the deceased must be established unequivocally and the burden rests on the prosecution to establish this and if they fail the accused must be discharged.
– Nnamani JSC. Lori v. State (1980)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry