Legalpedia Citation: (2025-04) Legalpedia 00680 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Apr 11, 2025

Suit Number: SC.CR/848/2020

CORAM

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

HARDO SHU’AIBU

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, ARMED ROBBERY, CULPABLE HOMICIDE, CONSPIRACY, EVIDENCE LAW, IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE, HEARSAY EVIDENCE, DIRECT EVIDENCE, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, RECENT POSSESSION, VITAL WITNESS, CROSS-EXAMINATION, CONCURRENT FINDINGS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal arose from the conviction of the Appellant along with two other defendants on charges of conspiracy, armed robbery, and culpable homicide punishable with death, contrary to Sections 97, 221, and 298 of the Penal Code Law, Cap P3, Laws of Jigawa State 2012.

The prosecution’s case was that on July 2, 2016, at about 1:30 AM, the Appellant and others, armed with sticks, went to the house of Mai Ungwar Idi (the deceased) at Malamawa Gidan Maza Garki, Jigawa State. They attacked the deceased and his wife by beating them mercilessly with sticks and dropped nylon fire balls on the deceased’s body. After the attack, they made away with cell phones and a motorcycle belonging to the deceased. Due to severe injuries sustained from the fire balls, the deceased was rushed to Gumel Hospital and then referred to Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, where he was pronounced dead and buried according to Islamic rites.

The Appellant and his gang were seen running away with the stolen motorcycle and were chased. They were eventually apprehended by PW2 and his group near the Appellant’s house and handed over to the police along with the stolen motorcycle.

The prosecution called two witnesses: Tabawa Mallam Idi (PW1), the wife of the deceased, who was an eyewitness to the attack, and Dayabu Abu Danzomo (PW2), who participated in the pursuit and arrest of the Appellant. PW1 testified about how the attackers broke into their home, beat her and her husband with sticks, and how the Appellant used a lighter to set nylon on fire and dropped fire balls on the deceased’s back. She also testified about the theft of their cell phones and motorcycle.

PW2 testified about receiving information about the robbery, mobilizing people to assist in arresting the robbers, pursuing them when they approached his village on a motorcycle, and finding the stolen motorcycle near the Appellant’s house. He also testified about arresting the 3rd defendant who tried to run away from a granary.

The Appellant testified in his own defense as DW1, claiming he was on his farm when the offense was committed. He said he received a call from the 3rd defendant about visitors misbehaving at his house, reported to police, and went home. He denied all charges and claimed he and his co-accused were tortured at the State Police Headquarters to obtain confessional statements, which they resisted.

Both the trial court and Court of Appeal found the Appellant guilty on all counts, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved all charges against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Regarding identification evidence, the Court found that PW1’s identification of the Appellant was reliable despite the attack occurring at night, as she testified that the attackers shone torchlights on their faces and she was able to see them clearly.
4. On hearsay evidence, the Court distinguished between two phases of PW2’s evidence: the first phase (being told about the robbery) was admissible to prove the fact that the statement was made, not the truth of its contents; the second phase (what a bystander told him about seeing the Appellant) was hearsay but not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
5. The Court held that the failure to call the bystander who allegedly saw the Appellant was not fatal, as he was a relevant but not vital witness who did not witness the actual crime.
6. The Court found that the discovery of the stolen motorcycle near the Appellant’s house, combined with other evidence, conclusively proved his participation in the offense.
7. The Court applied the doctrine of recent possession, holding that the Appellant’s possession of the stolen motorcycle shortly after the robbery created a presumption of guilt unless he provided a reasonable explanation, which he failed to do.
8. For the culpable homicide charge, the Court held that medical evidence was not indispensable where direct evidence established a causal link between the accused’s acts and the victim’s death.
9. The Court found that conspiracy could be inferred from the coordinated actions of the Appellant and his co-accused.
10. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, finding no perversity or miscarriage of justice.

ISSUES

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence available on record to warrant the affirmation of the judgment of the trial Court by the Court below?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

HEARSAY EVIDENCE — DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRUTH AND FACT OF STATEMENT

A statement is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made. – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

VITAL WITNESS — PROSECUTION’S OBLIGATION

The prosecution is not obliged to call any witness if the evidence of the witness is not necessary to sustain its case… the purported bystander who purportedly saw the Appellant after the crime was committed was a relevant but not a vital witness. He was not an eyewitness to the crime and merely seeing the Appellant even if he gave evidence on oath could not have grounded the offence against the Appellant.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

NON-TENDERING OF WEAPONS — EFFECT ON CONVICTION

Where there exists alternative pieces of evidence and/or copious amount of evidence proving that a defendant committed the crime of Armed Robbery, failure or refusal of prosecution to tender the weapons used at the robbery and/or the recovered stolen items would not adversely affect the required proof and the consequent conviction… it is not often that weapons used during such transactions are recovered, or the stolen items retrieved, and such failure to tender recovered weapons or items stolen would not adversely affect the required proof once other parameters exist in the evidence.– Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

THREE METHODS OF PROVING CRIME

There are three accepted ways of proving a crime in Court and they are: (a) Direct evidence; (b) Confession made by the accused person; and (c) Circumstantial evidence… Direct evidence is said to be the best evidence. – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

DIRECT EVIDENCE — STATUTORY REQUIREMENT

Section 126 of the Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023, requires that oral evidence in all cases must be direct. Evidence is direct when, if the fact to be proved was seen, then by the witness who saw it. If it was heard, then it must be the evidence of the witness who heard it. – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE — STANDARDS FOR CONVICTION

For a conviction to be based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must point to only one rational conclusion namely that the offence had been committed and that it was committed by the accused. In other words, the circumstantial evidence must point unequivocally and irresistibly to the fact that the offence was committed by the accused person, and in order to draw the inference of the accused person’s guilt based on circumstantial evidence, there must not be any other coexisting circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference. – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT — MEANING

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It means the prosecution established the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

VITAL WITNESS — DEFINITION AND CONSEQUENCES

A vital witness is a witness whose evidence may determine the case one way or the other. In other words, a witness who knows something significant about a matter is a vital witness… Failing to call a vital witness could be fatal to the case of the prosecution, and result in the acquittal of a defendant.– Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

ARMED ROBBERY — ELEMENTS TO PROVE

For the prosecution to secure a conviction for armed robbery, it must prove the following essential elements beyond reasonable doubt: (i) that there was a robbery; (ii) that the robbers were armed; and (iii) that the accused person participated in the armed robbery.– Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION

The doctrine of recent possession applies in this case, as the Appellant was found in possession of the stolen motorcycle shortly after the incident… where an accused is found in possession of stolen property shortly after a robbery, the law presumes that he is either the robber or received the property knowing it to be stolen unless he provides a reasonable explanation. – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE — ELEMENTS TO ESTABLISH

For this offence, the prosecution is required to establish by credible evidence that: (i) the deceased is dead; (ii) the death was caused by the act of the accused person; and (iii) that the act was done with the intention of causing death or that the accused knew that death was a probable consequence of his act. – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE — NOT INDISPENSABLE

Where direct evidence from a witness establishes a causal link between the accused’s act and the death of the victim, then medical evidence is not an indispensable requirement for securing a conviction… Medical evidence is not imperative where the victim died in circumstances in which there was abundant evidence of the manner of death which occurred immediately or so soon thereafter upon the occurrence of the act, is to enable the contemporaneity of the causation and effect. – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

CONSPIRACY — INFERENCE FROM CONDUCT

The offence of criminal conspiracy is complete once there is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, whether or not the act is carried out. Direct proof of the agreement is not always necessary, rather, it can be inferred from circumstantial evidence… conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused persons before, during and after the crime. – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Penal Code Law, Cap P3, Laws of Jigawa State 2012
2. Evidence Act 2011
3. Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT