Legalpedia Citation: (2014-06) Legalpedia (SC) 16641
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jun 26, 2014
Suit Number: SC. 186/2011
CORAM
PARTIES
ABDULLAHI UMAR APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION 1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41
The Appellant was charged at the trial court for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death by stabbing one Jamilu Muhammed with a scissors on the chest, contrary to Section 221 (b) of the Penal Code. The Appellant who pleaded not guilty to the charge speaks only Hausa. At the trial court, the prosecution called three witnesses who testified on their behalf and closed its case. The accused person testified as Dw1 and called no witness. Parties then addressed the court. After the conclusion of evidence and addresses, the trial court in a reserved judgment, delivered its judgment convicting the accused person and sentenced him to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Sokoto division, who unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Further dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant has further appealed to this court.
HELD
ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION 1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41
ISSUES
1. Whether the guilt of the Appellant was proved and established beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial to warrant the conviction of the Appellant under section 221 (b) of the penal code as affirmed by the Court of Appeal?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION 1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41
ISSUES- EFFECT OF FORMULATING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION FROM THE PARTICULARS OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL
“The law is this, that Issues are distilled or formulated from the ground or grounds of appeal and from no other. One cannot lawfully formulate issue or issues from the particulars of the ground of appeal, if he or she does that in the eyes of the law there is no issue worth considering.”
CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE – INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE THE CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“The law is well settled that for the prosecution to secure the conviction of the accused, it must prove the following three ingredients:-
1.That death has taken place;
2.such was caused by the act or commission of the accused; and
3.that the accused knew or had reason to know that death would be the probable consequence of his act or any bodily injury. The prosecution has the onerous duty of proving the accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubts.”
PRESUMPTION – A MAN IS PRESUMED TO INTEND THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACT
“It is also settled that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his act.”
MURDER – INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION OF MURDER
“It is already settled beyond controversy in several decisions of this Court, that in order to secure a conviction on a charge of murder, the prosecution must prove the following:
1.That someone had died;
2.That the death of the person so identified was caused by the accused standing trial.
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.
It is noteworthy that these three ingredients must co-exist and where one of them is absent or tainted with some doubt, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.”
MURDER – NATURE OF EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH A CHARGE OF MURDER
“It is trite that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to establish a charge of murder may be direct or circumstantial. However, whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, it must necessarily establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.”
ACCIDENT – NATURE OF ACT THAT CAN QUALIFY AS AN ACCIDENT
“The law is that for an act to qualify as an accident, it must be a surprise to the ordinary man of prudence. That is a surprise to all sober and reasonable people”.
DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT – THE TEST OF THE PLEA OR DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT MUST BE OBJECTIVE
“The test of the plea or defence is always objective and the act said to have led to the accident must be a lawful act done in a lawful manner.”
DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT – NATURE OF ACT THAT WILL NEGATIVE THE DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT
“A willed deliberate act will negative the defence of accident.”
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY – PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“It is now settled that what is relevant in our criminal law is that the act of the accused person which resulted in the death of the deceased must be unlawful. The mens rea or malice afore thought no longer governs the criminal responsibility of the accused person as these are common law concepts. Motive is also said to be irrelevant except that where it is proved, it strengthens the case of the prosecution.”
PRESUMPTION – PRESUMPTION AS TO WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE
“In Onwujuba v. Obienu (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 183) 16 SC, Uwais, JSC (as His Lordship then was), stated that before the presumption under Section 149 (d) of the Evidence Act (now Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act 2011 can operate, it must be shown and established: that such evidence existed, and that it was that party that withheld it.”
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS- ATTITUDE OF THE APEX COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS BY THE LOWER COURTS
“This Court does not, as a matter of principle or practice, disturb concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appeal Court”.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURT – WHEN CAN THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS BE DISTURBED
“However, the principle of inviolability of concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below is not cast in stone like the Ten Commandments. It has its limitations and can and ought to be disturbed where the findings are either perverse or there is substantial error either in substantive or procedural law which if uncorrected will lead to miscarriage of justice.”
OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE – METHOD OF PROOF THAT CAN GROUND A CONVICTION IN AN OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH
“It is thus, my understanding, that the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death as provided under section 221 [b] of the Penal Code can be proved to the standard required by the law, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt by any of the following methods:
[ii]by confession of the accused person,
[ii]by direct evidence,
[iii]by circumstantial evidence and or;
[iv]by the combination of all or any of the above methods.”
CONVICTION – DUTY ON THE PROSECUTION IN SECURING THE CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“In attempt to secure conviction, the prosecution is at liberty to rely on the evidence of a witness or witnesses or on the proven confession of the accused person or on strong circumstantial evidence.”
CASES CITED
ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION 1960 FSC 207/1959 [1960] NSCC 41|Abdulbaki vs. Katsina Native Authority [1961] NNCN 12,|Abdulbaki vs. The State (2009) 8 SCM 177|Adio vs. The State [1986] 5 SC 194 at page 219-220|Adulumola vs. The State (1988) 3 SCNJ 68;|Agbakoba v. INEC 12 SC. (part ill) page 198 to 199|Alhassan Maiyaki V. The state (2008) 7 SC 128 at 152|Ali Bello & Ors. Vs. Attorney General of Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt 45) 825|Audu Umaru Vs. The State (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt 138) 363 at 370;|Bakare vs. The State [1987] 1 NWLR [part 52] 581|Bankole v. Pelu (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt 211) 23;|Buraimole Ajayi v. The state (1964) IMIMLR 61|Chukwu Vs. The State (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt 217) 225; (1992) 1 SCNJ 57|Dibiamaka v. Osakwe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 97) 101|Enang v. Adu (1981) 11 -12 SC; (1981) 11 -12 SC (reprint) 17;|Frank Uwagboe vs. The State (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt 1102) 621, (2008) 7 SCM 152; (2008) 34 NSCQR (Pt 11) 664;|Igwe v. state (1982) 9 SC 174|Isibor v. state (2002) 2 SC (pt. 11)110|Jerome Akpanor & 3 Ors v. The state (2002) JSCN P110|Kale v. Coker (1982) 12 SC 252 at 271|Lokoyi & Anorv. Oloio (1983) 8 SC 61 at 68;|Monday Nwaeze Vs. The State (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt 443) 375|Njoku & ors v. Erne & ors (1973) 5 SC 213 at 306;|Nwali Vs. The State (1991) 5 SCN 14|Obudu Vs. The State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt 198) 433;|Onwujuba v. Obienu (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 183) 16 SC|Ozaki & Anor. vs. The State [1990] 1NWLR [pt. 124] 92 at page 125 [1991] 21 NSCC [part 11] 79 at p. 101|Qgba Vs. The State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt 222) 164;|Shinfida v. Commissioner of police (1970 – 1972) LRNIM pages 113 -117|Solomon Adekunle vs. The state (2006) 10 – 11 SCM 147; (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt 1000) 717
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Criminal Procedure Code
3. Penal Code