IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
ON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
CA/OW/42C/2014
BETWEEN
CHINEDU OSUJI - Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE - Respondent(s)
MAIN JUDGMENT
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of Imo State High Court in charge No.HME/2C/2008, Delivered on 16/12/2011 BY Hon. Justice T.E. Chukwuemeka Chikeka, wherein the learned trial judge convicted the Appellant for murder and sentenced him to death by hanging.
Appellant (as accused at the Court below) was arraigned on information filed on 13/8/08, charged for murdering one Angus Iwueze (M) on 22nd November, 2007, at Umuelemai Junction in Isiala Mbano Judicial Division, by stabbing him with broken bottle in the neck, thereby committing offence, contrary to Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 77 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, as applicable to Imo State of Nigeria. On being arraigned on 13/10/2008, he pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charge, after the charge had been read and explained to him ý See page 36 of the Records of Appeal.
The Prosecution had called 8 witnesses to prove the charge while Appellant called 2 witnesses in his defence. At the end of the trial, the lower Court held:
"The accused after he was thrown to the ground by the deceased, did not do anything, he went back into his shop but like the lion waiting to bounce at his prey unsuspectingly, broke a stout bottle and pursued the deceased. The Accused, in his evidence said he was confused. I do not believe he was, this is because the act of breaking a stout bottle is not the act of a confused person. He knew what he did when he broke the bottle and pursued the unsuspecting deceased. The point of impact does not show the act of somebody who has no intention to kill. I hold therefore that the accused had the intention to kill the deceased by his said act. The act of stabbing did not take place during the fighting but afterwards. There is evidence that the deceased died on his way to the hospital due to the injury sustained. See testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6, PW7 PW8. Has the accused any legal defence? From the facts of this case, the accused had none, he was not in any heat of passion, his action was uncalled forý the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is guilty as chargedý" See pages 128 ý 129 of the Records.
Dissatisfied, Appellant filed this appeal, as per the Notice of Appeal on pages 130 to 132 of the Record of Appeal, disclosing four (4) grounds of Appeal. Appellant filed his brief of arguments on 18/12/14 and distilled three (3) issues for the determination of the appeal, as follows:
1. Whether the Court below was fair in the trial and evaluation of evidence before it having failed to resolve the material inconsistencies and doubt in the prosecution's case in reaching the decision convicting the Appellant. (Grounds 1 and 3)
2. Whether the defences of self-defence and provocation availed the Appellant. (Ground 2)
3. Whether the confessional statements upon which the Appellant was convicted were proved to have been made voluntarily. (Ground 4)
Appellant also filed a Reply Brief on 1/2/16.
The Respondent filed its brief on 22/5/15 and the same was deemed duly filed on 29/9/15. In the Brief, the Respondent raised a notice of preliminary objection against ground 3 and the issue formulated on it, saying that the ground 3 was incompetent, "as it is not precise, inconclusive and does not relate nor have bearing to the particulars of the said ground."
The Respondent, on the main appeal, distilled 4 (four) issues for determination of the appeal, namely:
1. Whether or not there was material inconsistencies and doubt evident in the prosecution's case which the lower Court failed to resolve properly. (Ground).
2. Whether the trial lower Court was right when he held that there was no legal defences of provocation and self defence available to the Appellant. (Ground 2).
3. Whether or not placing heavy reliance on a post mortem report vitiates rules of fair hearing and invalidates the decision of the lower Court. (Ground 3).
4. Whether the judgment of the lower Court was justifiable, in view of the admission of the confessional statement of the Appellant (Ground 4).
When the appeal was heard on 2/2/16, the parties, through their Counsel, adopted their brief and urged us accordingly.
Arguing what the Respondents called, preliminary objection (which is only on objection to a ground of appeal), the Respondents' Counsel said the ground 3 on the face of it is argumentative, nebulous, not precise, inconclusive and does not relate to the particulars thereof. He relied on the case of Ogbonnya Vs Adapalm Nigeria Ltd (1993)5 NWLR (Pt.292) 147. He argued that while the ground 3 said:
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he convicted the accused/Appellant by placing heavy reliance on the post mortem report", the particulars of the said ground ran counter to it when it dealt completely with fair hearing and not on the placement of heavy reliance on the autopsy report. He said the ground and the issues are not related; that being incompetent it should be struck out together with the issues distilled there from and the arguments thereof.
The Appellant's reaction to that was his reply brief, wherein he asserted that the ground of the appeal and the particulars thereof are competent and in order; that the ground is clearly borne out of the decision of the trial Court. He referred us to pages 110 to 129 of the Records of Appeal and the case of Saude Vs Abudullahi (1989)4 NWLR (Pt.116) 1989 7 SCNJ 216; Saraki Vs Kotoye (1992)9 NWLR (pt.264) 156. He said that the particulars of the appeal are in tandem with the Records of Appeal, and to the Exhibit G, the autopsy report. He urged to dismiss the objection.
RESOLUTION OF THE OBJECTION
The grounds 3 of the appeal says:
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he convicted the Accused/Appellant by placing heavy reliance on the post mortem report.
Particularsýof Errorý
i. By Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, every accused person is entitled to fair hearing
ii. Fair hearing presupposes an accused having an opportunity, at the earliest possible time, of knowing the case against him.
iii. The post mortem report vitiated the rule of fair hearing as Accused/Appellant was not present at the time of the post mortem report.
iv. The post-mortem report clearly stated the cause of the deceased's death.
I find it difficult to appreciate the complaints raised by the Respondent against the ground 3 of the appeal, as being not precise, inconclusive, nebulous, and not relating to the particulars thereof. Appellant's complaint as to the particulars (i) and (ii), touching on Appellants right of fair hearing, can only be read in the context of paragraph (iii) thereof, which complained that the Accused/Appellant was not present when the autopsy report, which the trial Court heavily relied upon, was made; that, having not been there, when the examination and report were made, to that extent, his right of fair hearing was compromised. I do not see any disconnect between the ground 3 and its particular, nor the alleged imprecision or nebulousness. I dismiss the objection for lacking in merit.
I should also remind Counsel that preliminary objection can only be raised against competence of an appeal, as a whole, and that where the objection is against the competence of a ground(s) of appeal, the objector cannot resort to "preliminary objection" but should rather file a motion challenging the competence of the particular ground(s) of appeal, to strike it down. See the Supreme Court decision in the case of Nwaolisah Vs Nwabufoh (2011)14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 600, which we relied upon in the case of Obosi Vs NIPOST (2013) LPELR? 21397 CA:
"A preliminary objection should only be filed against the hearing of an appeal and not against one or more grounds of appeal"
See also Alaribe Vs Okwuonu (2015) LPELR 24297 (CA):
"I think it is necessary to state again, that there is a difference between raising a preliminary objection against an appeal, under Order 10 Rule 1 of Court of Appeals Rules, 2011, and raising objection against a ground(s) of appeal for being defective. Whereas, in the former the notice of preliminary objection ought to be filed, separately, at least 3 clear days to the hearing, before arguing it... in the latter situation, the Respondent only needs to file a motion to highlight the defects in the ground(s) and the same can be properly raised in the Respondent's brief and argued therein. See Okereke Vs Adiele (2014) LPELR 24103 CA."
On the main appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant, I.U.K. Nlem Esq, who settled the brief, on issue one, submitted that there were material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution at the lower Court and that where there are contradictions or inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution, witnesses, the judge must advert his mind to same and is not placed to pick and choose; that where the contradictions are as to the cause of death on a medical issue in the trial, it is sufficient to cast doubt in the mind of the trial judge. He referred us to Ogbu Vs State (2003) FWLR (Pt.147) 1102 Aliyu Vs State (2005) Vol. 4 LRCN 235.
Counsel further submitted that, when a witness is shown to have made previous statements, inconsistent with the evidence given by the witness at the trial, the trial Court should not merely regard the evidence given at the trial as unreliable, the Court should also be conscious that the previous statements, sworn or unsworn, do not constitute evidence upon which it can act. He referred us to Akalonu Vs State (2005) Vol. 4 LRCNCC 126.
Counsel referred us to the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW7 on pages 41, 42, 45, 49, 50, 61, 63, 71 and 72, respectively, which he said labored on the issue of fight, time lapse between the actual fight and injuries and death of the deceased. He said that the contradictions, inconsistencies and material discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were glaring, so much so that the trial judge ought to have commented on them and at best discharge the accused on the strength of the contradictions and inconsistencies. He urged us to so hold and discharge and acquit the Appellant.
Counsel also referred us to the evidence of the medical doctor (PW7) who conducted the autopsy examination, that the doctor stated that he found lacerations at the right angle and at the posterior angle of the neck; that the cause of death, in his opinion, was hemorrhage consequent upon sharp object injuries on the right side of the chest and the lung; that he listed the type of sharp objects capable of causing the injury- like kitchen knife, sharp edge of a broken bottle, a sharp big screw driver. Counsel then asked whetherýin a reasonable man's view, the sharp edge of a kitchen knife and of a screw driver can be of the same length with a sharp edge of a broken bottle, considering the nature of the various objects. He said that if the answer were in the negative, it settled the fact that a broken bottle, if actually used by the Appellant, as stated in the case, cannot be long enough to have caused injuries from the posterior angle of the neck down to the chest and the lung, as speculated by the prosecution witnesses. He said there were devious inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution; that it is no possible to hold that the evidence of the prosecution was over whelming as doubt should have been cast in the mind of the judge when the medical cause of death was considered in the circumstances, and that should have been resolved for the accused person. He relied on Aliyu Vs State (supra); Obue Vs State (1976) 2 SC 141; State Vs Azeez (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt.424) 1423.
He further submitted that the fact that the Court relied on autopsy report, where of the PW7 conducted the Post mortem examination in the absence of the Appellant, showed a breach of his fair hearing; that being a party to the case and in custody of the Police (PW6) DSP John Okong (who also witnessed the Post mortem examination), Appellant should have been present at the conduct of the autopsy examination. He relied on the case of Bakoshi Vs. Chief of Naval Staff (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt.248) 1719 at 1720-1727; Dawodu Vs Ologundudu (1986) FWLR (Pt.33) 104; Ogundoyin Vs. Adeyemi (2001) FWLR (Pt.74) 1741 on the issue of fair hearing.
On Issue 2, about defences of self-defence and provocation, Appellant's Counsel submitted that the DW1's evidence as per the Records, Appeal, was that the fight between him and the deceased took place in his (Appellant) shop, under the canopy and that he was thrown down by the deceased on the hard floor, which affected his self control; that the trial Court was under a duty to consider dispassionately any defence raised by the accused person, however stupid, bogus, incongruous or unpalatable it appeared. He relied on Adisa Vs State (1991)1 NWLR (Pt.490) 509; Opeyemi Vs. State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.5) 101. He said that the evidence of DW1 at the trial established strong ground of provocation and loss of self control, which evidence the trial Court gave no consideration in its decision.
He referred us to pages 125 - 129 of the Records. He argued that there were some acts done by the deceased to the Appellant which could cause any reasonable person to lose self control and which actually made the Appellant to lose self control, rendering him subject to passion as to make him, for that moment, not to be master of his mind and that was provocation. He urged us to so hold and relied on the case of Amala Vs State (2004) ALL FFWLR (Pt.219) 1102.
He submitted that where there is evidence, as in this case, to show that the accused person was being throttled by the deceased, who indeed was trying to choke or asphyxiate the Appellant and he could not breathe, and believed, at the moment, that the deceased was intent in killing him, it was expected and reasonable of the Appellant to defend himself, even with a knife, if that was the only instrument he could lay his hand on, to ward off the danger to his life, posed by the deceased. Thus,
Counsel said, the defence of acting in self-defence would avail the Appellant. He urged us to so hold relying again on the case of Amala Vs State (supra).
On Issue 3, whether the confessional statement upon which Appellant was convicted, was proved to have been made voluntarily. Appellant's Counsel submitted that the confessional statement was not proved to have been made voluntarily, that it was extracted after Appellant had been tortured by the IPO (PW6), and objection to its admission was overruled by the trial judge; that the statement (Exhibit F) ought not to have been admitted in evidence. He submitted that when admissibility of a Accused Statement is challenged on ground that it was not made voluntarily, it is incumbent on the trial judge to call on the prosecutor to establish that it was made voluntarily by conducting a trial within-trial; that the trial Court should have conducted a trial within-trial in this case to test the voluntariness of the said confessional statement (Exhibit F); that rather than do this, the trial enormously accepted that the challenge made to Exhibit F by Appellant Counsel did not necessitate the conduct of trial-within-??trial; that that was wrong. He relied on the case of Nsofor Vs State (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt.242) 397 AT 402.
He urged us to resolve the issues for the Appellant and to allow the appeal, discharge and acquit the Appellant, or in the alternative, reduce the sentence from murder to manslaughter, (given the facts of defence of provocation and/or self defence raised by the Appellant), or to order for retrial. He added that this Court can interfere with the sentence by the trial Court, drawing from the grounds of appeal and issues raised, since it is obvious that the trial and the decision of the lower Court was wrong on principle and the sentence manifestly excessive, in the circumstances of the case. He relied on the case of Eno Vs Nigeria Copy Right Commission (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt 547) 684 at 608.
The Respondent's Counsel, E. E. Ibe Esq, Deputy Director of Public prosecution, Ministry of justice, Imo State,) on his issue, listed the essential ingredients of offence of murder, which the Prosecution had a duty to establish, namely:
a) That the death of a human being has actually taken place
b) That such death was caused by the Appellant
c) That the act was done with intention to cause death or death may probably be the result
d) That the Appellant pre- meditated the act, and
e) That no legal defence is available to the Appellant. He relied on Section 318, 284 and 286 of the Criminal Code and the case of Festus Amayo vs The State (2001) 8 NSCQR 431 at 477.
He submitted that the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 disclosed the above ingredients of the offence and also fixed the Appellant to the commission of same. He referred us to pages 49 and 50 of the Records of Appeal for the evidence of PW3, pages 40 to 43 for evidence of Pw2 and pages 53 ý?? 56 for the evidence of PW4. He said that evidence showed that Appellant and the deceased fought at the first spot and were separated and about 15 minutes later he (Appellant) broke a bottle, pursued the deceased and got him, about 2 poles distance from the first spot of fight, and stabbed him to death; that there was neither struggle nor fight between them at the last spot or scene of stabbing.
Counsel submitted that there was no material inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution; he admitted that in law, whenever there is material inconsistency and doubt the Court usually resolves for the accused person. But in this case, the evidence was consistent, unequivocal and devoid of any material doubts; that the evidence of PW3 fixed the Appellant to the commission of the offence, without any loopholes; who stated that Appellant held the deceased on the neck and was dragging him up and down on the ground, "and he used the broken bottle he was having and stabbed the deceased 3 times..., at the neck region twice and the 3rd one at the upper region of the jaw, which left the neck through the jaw to mouth wide open."
Counsel said the evidence of PW3 was corroborated by PW2 and PW4, there was no contradiction or inconsistency; that from the eye witnesses accounts (PW2, PW3 and PW4) who saw the attack on the deceased by the Appellant, the injuries inflicted on the deceased by the stabbing and the death of the deceased soon thereafter, and the autopsy report by PW7, it was obvious that the act of the Appellant was the cause of death of the deceased, and it was safe to convict him. He relied on Michael Ebeinwe Vs. The State (2011) 45 BSCQR (Pt.112) 1206 at 1218; Onuchukwu Vs. The State (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt.57) 576.
On the allegation that absence of the Appellant at the conduct of the post mortem examination violated the Appellant's right of fair hearing, Counsel for the Respondent said that cannot be; that the exercise was carried out in the presence of witnesses, including the mother of the Appellant (DW2) who represented the Appellant. Counsel also argued that medical evidence can even be dispensed with in the circumstances of death, as in this case, where the death of the deceased occurred on the spot or on the way to the hospital. He said that the cause of the death was clear, as the deceased died shortly after the attack by the Appellant. He relied on Diguoreghian Vs. The State (2004)3 NWLR (Pt.860) 367 at 396 -397; (2004) 17 NSCQR; Uguru Vs. The State (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 771) 90.
On Issue 2, Counsel said the trial Court was right, when it held that there was no legal defences of provocation and selfýdefence available to Appellant. He referred us to the case of James Biniwa Vs The State (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 359) 635 at 671 to say that, provocation arises where there is some act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused, which would cause any reasonable person
(and actually caused accused person) sudden and temporary loss of self control, rendering him subject to act and not to be master of his own self at the moment; that elements of provocation consists of provocative act, loss of self control and both actual and reasonable and proportional retaliation. He also relied on Edoho Vs The State (2010) 42 NSCQR (Pt.1) 451 at 486. Counsel said the evidence in this case negatesýthese ingredients of provocation. He referred us to evidence of PW's2, 3, 4 and 5, earlier relied upon on issue 1. He also relied on the evidence of the appellant and said that, the entire evidence failed to show cogent and compelling circumstances to justify any defence of provocation.
In the same way, Counsel said the defence of acting in self defence was not available to the Appellant; that under that defence the Appellant must show that the deceased assaulted him and he (Appellant) used appropriate and reasonable force to ward off the danger posed by the attacker; that Appellant was not the aggressor but was acting to defend himself. He relied on the case of Gambo Musa Vs. The State (2009) 39 NSCQR 358 at 382-383; Akpan Vs The State (1994) NWLR (Pt. 368) 347.
Counsel said that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the statements of the Appellant (Exhibits E and F) in this case incriminated him and never raised any defence of self defence; that the trial Court found that Appellant never raised any defence of self defence and that the Court also adjudged that such defences were not available to the Appellant; that the trial Court had, by so doing, considered the said defences of provocation and self defence.
On Issue 3, Counselýagain, said the conduct of the post mortem examination by the PW7 did not violate the right of Appellant to fair hearing, as there were witnesses present, including the mother of the Appellant, and that Appellant's absence had no negative effect on the post mortem report; that there is no rule that accused person must be personally present when the body of a deceased (allegedly killed by the accused) is examined by a doctor. Counsel added again that medical evidence ceases to be of practical necessity, where the deceased died almost immediately from the injuries inflicted by Appellant, as in the instant case. Diguoreghian Vs The State (supra); Uguru Vs The State (supra).
OnýIssue 4, whether the judgment was unjustifiable, Counsel urged us to resolve this for the Respondent. Counsel relied on the case of Emmanuel Eke Vs. The State (2011) 45 NSCSQR (Pt.11) 652 at 664 on how to determine the voluntariness or otherwise of confessional statement; that the Supreme Court held that trial-within-trial to determine the voluntariness or otherwise of statement claimed not to have been voluntarily made is very essential, but where evidence led and accepted in the trial is so over whelming and conviction was easily sustained without the confessional statement, failure to conduct trial-within-trial will not affect the judgment of the trial Court.
Counsel said in this case, apart from the confessional statement (Exhibit F) the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, who were eye witnesses of the attack, were direct and enough to establish the conviction; that they pointed at the Appellant, conclusively, as the person who caused the death of the deceased, and the Court also found so, holding that Appellant intended to kill and actually killed the deceased. Thus, Counsel said, apart from the confessional statement (Exhibit F), there were other sufficient evidence to safely convict the Appellant for the murder of the deceased. He relied on the case of Emmanuel Eke Vs. The State (2011) 45 NSCQR (Pt.11)652 at 664; Ofoke Nwambe Vs. The State (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt.384) 385 at 407.
He urged us to resolve the issues against the Appellant and to dismiss the appeal.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I think Appellant's 3 issues are more apt for the determination of this appeal, but the issues 1 and 3 can conveniently be taken together, because in considering whether the trial Court was fair in the trial and evaluation of the evidence before it, before reaching its conclusion to convict the Appellant, it was bound to consider not only, the alleged material inconsistencies and doubt in the prosecution's case, but also the quality of statements made by the Appellant to the Police, whether the same were voluntary or not, or whether, despite the retraction, there was sufficient evidence to establish the commission of the offence.
I shall therefore take the Issues 1 and 3 together, before considering the Issue 2, whether the defences self-defence and of provocation availed the Appellant.
A brief facts of this case shows that the deceased Angus Iwueze, and the Appellant Chinedu Osuji, had a fight on 22/11/07 in front of Appellant's shop and people separated them. The cause of the fight appeared to centre around Appellant's complaint that the deceased insulted his (Appellant's) mother. After the separation and advice (by those attracted by the fight) that the two should go home, and the atmosphere calming down, the Appellant, surprisingly, collected a bottle from his mother's shop, which he broke and advanced towards the deceased, who on noticing the Appellant ran, but was caught by the assailant (Appellant) who stabbed him on the neck region and in between his lower and upper jaw. On doing this, Appellant ran away! The deceased was rushed to the hospital but he died before reaching the hospital. The medical Report, Exhibit G, confirmed his death.
Was the trial judge right to convict and sentence the Appellant for the murder of the deceased (Angus Iwueze), given the quality of evidence adduced by the witnesses in the case, or were there material contradictions or material discrepancies, as alleged by the Appellant, to fault the decision of the trial Court?
To prove a charge of murder, under Section 319 of the Criminal Code, the burden is always on the prosecution, to establish the guilt of Accused Person, beyond reasonable doubt. That calls for a lot of caution on the part of the Court, and imposes a duty of thoroughness on the part of the Prosecution, to ensure that evidence is brought to show, unmistakably, that the Accused Person's act or omission caused the death of the deceased, and that that act or omission of the accused person was with the requisite intention to cause the death of the deceased, or to cause him grievous bodily harm. And, as submitted by Counsel on both sides, the following ingredients of the offence of murder must be established:
(1) Death of the Deceased
(2) The death resulted from the act/omission of the Accused
(3) The Accused person caused the death intentionally, or with requisite knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence of his act/omission.
See the case of Sule Vs State (2009) 19 NWLR (pt.1169) 33; Nkebisi Vs State (2010) 5 NWLR (pt.1184) 471; Mbang Vs State (2010) 7 NWLR (pt.1194) 431; Usman Vs State (2011) 4 NWLR (pt.1233) 1; Akpa Vs State (2008) 14 NWLR (pt.1106) 72; Musa Vs The State (2014) LPELR?? 22912 (CA); Okon Vs The State (2014) LPELR?? 24018 (CA).
Of course, the above ingredients can be established by:
(a) Production of positive and direct eye witness account of the killing, when it occurred. See Blessing Vs FRN (2013) 12 WRN 36; Okon Vs The State (2014) LPELR?? 24018 (CA); OBASI Vs The State (2014) LPELR?? 24013 (CA).
(b) By cogent circumstantial evidence which points directly, unmistakably and conclusively at the accused person as the one from whom the guilt for the murder can be inferred. See Nasiru Vs The State (1999) 2 NWLR (pt.589); Chiokwe Vs The State (2005) NWLR (pt.918) 424; Obasi Vs The State (2014) LPELR?? 24013;
(c) By confessional statement of accused person, adjudged voluntary, even when it is retracted, where the Court is satisfied that it accords with the other pieces of evidence before it. See Haruna Vs A.G. Fed. (2012) 2009 LRCN 70; (2012) 32 WRN 1; Oseni Vs The State (2012) LPELR 7833 (SC); Blessing Vs FRN (2015) LPELR 24689 (SC).
From the circumstances of this case and the evidence adduced before the trial Court, was the trial Court correct in holding that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant caused the death of the deceased?
The trial Court had relied on the evidence of eye witnesses to the commission of the offence, particularly that PW2, PW3, and PW4, on how the deceased was attacked and stabbed by the Appellant, using a broken bottle, which attack resulted in the death of the deceased. The Court also relied on the confessional statement (Exhibit F) by the Appellant to found his conviction. See pages 127 and 128 of the Records of Appeal, where the trial Court said:
"The testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, all eye witnesses to the event, apart from PW5, who did not witness the stabbing, testified as to how the fight broke out on the road, between the accus