Murder: Don’t convict me with circumstantial evidence, suspect begs court

A 46-year-old man arraigned by the FCT Police for allegedly beating his wife to death has told an FCT High Court that he should be freed because the evidence provided by the police are circumstantial.

The suspect, Yakubu Bulus, was charged by the police for causing the death of one Hannatu Daniel “by repeatedly hitting her with fist blow which resulted to her death.”

However, while making his final written address before the court, yesterday, his counsel, Azubuike Moneke told the court that none of the witnesses called by the prosecution was present at the scene of the crime, thereby making their evidence a hearsay and circumstantial.

“No autopsy was conducted on the deceased to ascertain the actual cause of death since the deceased was said to have died several days after the said beating, despite an existing medical report that said the deceased was suffering from low blood pressure,” he said.

He added that the prosecution failed to call Dr. Nathaniel Erume, the medical officer who examined the corpse and the nominal complainant, one Magdalene Daniel, invited to corroborate the extrajudicial statement made by the defendant where he allegedly admitted to beating his wife.

Responding, the prosecutor, Barrister Eghwere ShadrachOsiaje told the court that the defendant in the extra-judicial statement confessed that, “After beating her, I discovered that she was in pain and due to lack of money, I did not take her to the hospital”, thus establishing that the beating the deceased suffered was the cause of her death.

She added that the medical report said the deceased was brought to the hospital with swollen eyes and speech impairment.

To this, the judge, Justice Peter Affen, asked the prosecutor to explain how the doctor that wrote the report was able to come to the conclusion that it was a case of assault when the deceased was said to be unable to speak when she was brought to the hospital.

Barrister Shadrach-Osiaje responded that the nominal complainant told the doctor that the deceased was beaten by the defendant and that the defendant’s confessional statement made at two different instances confirmed this.

“Apart from the confessional statement, is there any corroborative evidence placed before the court in the sense of the nominal complainant and the medical officer that examined the deceased,” he asked.

The court upon taking all the submissions from the counsels thereafter reserved judgment to a date that would be communicated to the parties.