Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

INGREDIENTS FOR A CONVICTION OF MURDER

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

THERE MUST BE A NEXUS BETWEEN THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED AND THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED

Also settled, is that in a murder trial, the prosecution, must show conclusively, that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the accused person. In other words, there must be a nexus between the act of the accused person and the death of the victim.

— Ogbuagu, JSC. Udosen v State (2007) – SC.199/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS NOT A SINE QUA NON FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MURDER

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

Was this dictum helpful?

THERE NEED NOT BE AN INTENT TO KILL FOR MURDER TO SUCCEED

What then is Murder as an offence with which the appellant was charged, convicted and sentenced? Murder is the taking of human life by a person who either (a) has a malicious and willful intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm, or (b) is wickedly reckless as to the consequences of his act upon his victim. For murder therefore, there must be an evil intent, that is, a criminal intent although it is not necessary that there should be an intent to kill. See; R v. Viockers (1957) 2 All ER 741 at 744.

— Ariwoola JSC. Henry Nwokearu V. The State (SC.227/2011, 24 MAY 2013)

Was this dictum helpful?

IN MURDER: THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED MUST BE ESTABLISHED

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

INGREDIENTS FOR MURDER

If the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous harm; If death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which all is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life ; If the offender intends to do grievous harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such offence; If death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering things for either the purposes last aforesaid; If death is caused by willfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes, is guilty of murder. In the second case, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. A In the third case, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

— Onnoghen, JSC. Njoku v. The State (2012)

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 159 | UO – 0 | GO – 104 | BO – 55

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.