MOHAMMED USMAN v. THE STATE
April 4, 2025HON. AMINU IBRAHIM MALLE V. KASIMU BELLO MAIGARI & ORS
April 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (SC) 22131
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Apr 11, 2019
Suit Number: SC.496/2014
CORAM
PARTIES
ALPHA PAUL APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant who was living at Bariyanga village, via Gunduma, Gassol Local Government Area of Taraba State with his wife before this incidence, left their home and went to a television-viewing centre to watch a football match. The Appellant’s wife also left home and went to where she sold locally brewed alcohol popularly called “burukutu.” The Appellant returned home late in the night and found that the door leading to their bedroom was locked from inside. Knowing that his wife was inside, he called severally and knocked at the door for his wife to open the door, there was no answer. He kicked open the door with his foot and entered the room and a quarrel ensued between him and his wife. This quarrel degenerated into a fight, which led to the death of his wife.
The Appellant was subsequently arrested and handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department, Police Headquarters, Jalingo. The Appellant was arraigned before the Taraba State High Court, on a one-count charge of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221(a) of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. In a reserved and considered judgment, the trial court found the Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death by hanging. The Appellant felt aggrieved and therefore filed an appeal at the Court of appeal. His appeal was heard unanimously and was dismissed. Further aggrieved, the Appellant have lodged an appeal before this Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the prosecution has proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt
RATIONES DECIDENDI
OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE – PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
“The charge against the Appellant at the trial Court is culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 (a) of the Penal Code. This Section provides as follows: –
“Except, in the circumstances mentioned in Section 222, culpable homicide shall be punished with death if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of casing death.”
CULPABLE HOMICIDE – DEFINITION OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
“Culpable homicide is defined under Section 220 of the same Penal Code as follows: –
“220, Whoever causes death: –
(a) by doing an act with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
(b) by doing an act with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death; or
(c) by doing a rash or negligent act, commits the offence of culpable homicide.” Homicide therefore means the act of killing of a person or persons by another person or persons. It is the act of purposely, knowingly or recklessly or negligently causing the death of a human being. See Umaru Adamu v The State (2014)10 NWLR (Pt.1415) 441, Apishe v The State (1971)1 All NLR 50, Takida v State (1969)1 All NLR 270; Williams v IGP (1965) NMLR 470.”
PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE- INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH IN PROVING THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
“The Law is settled that if the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is on the person who asserts it, whether the commission of such crime is or is not directly in issue in the action. See Section 135 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, Akpan v The State (1990)7 NWLR (Pt.160)101, Adamu v A.G. Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.22) 284. Section 36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, provides that every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. Flowing from this Constitutional provision, it is plain that the burden of proof in criminal cases is on the prosecution, who must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a general duty to rebut the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to the accused person. This burden does not shift. For the prosecution to prove the offence of culpable homicide, it must prove the following ingredients:
1. That the death of a human being has actually taken place.
2. That such death was caused by the accused person.
3. That the act of the accused that caused the death was done with the intention of causing death or that the accused knew or had reason to believe that death would be the probable consequence of his act. All the three ingredients must be proved before a conviction can be secured. See Oguno v The State (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 314, Gira v The State (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.443) 375, Adava v The State (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt.984) 152, Akpa v State (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1019) 500; Uwagboe v State (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt.1031) 606.”
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT –DEFINITION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“Confessional statement is the best evidence and a Court can convict based on confessional statement alone.” What then is a confessional statement? Section 28 of the Evidence Act defines a confession to mean an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.”
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER A STATEMENT WRONGLY ADMITTED AS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT CAN BE RELIED UPON AS A BASIS FOR CONVICTION
“However, a statement wrongly admitted as a confessional statement, does not become obsolete as same can, if it has no defect, be admitted as an ordinary statement and be relied upon as a basis for conviction. See Gbadamosi & Anor. v The State (Supra).”
WRITTEN REPORT BY A MEDICAL OFFICER – IMPORT OF SECTION 249 (3) (A) (B) AND(C) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ON A WRITTEN REPORT BY A MEDICAL OFFICER
Section 249 (3) (a) (b) and(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as follows: –
“249(3)(a) A written report by any medical officer or registered medical practitioner may at the discretion of the Court be admitted in evidence for the purpose of providing the nature of any injuries received by and the physical cause of the death of any person who has been examined by him.
(b). On the admission of such report, the same shall be read over to the accused and he shall be asked whether he disagrees with any statement therein and any such disagreement shall be recorded by the Court.
(c). If by any reason of any such disagreement or otherwise it appears desirable for the ends of justice that such medical officer or registered medical practitioner shall attend and give evidence in person, the Court shall summon such medical practitioner to appear as a witness.” Although Section 249 (3) (b) provides that the written medical report shall be read to the accused person after its admission in evidence and he shall be asked whether he disagrees with any statement therein, where the accused person is represented by a counsel, the Court needs not ask the accused if he agrees with any statement in the medical report. See A.G. Difa v The State (1977) NNLR 224.”
MEDICAL REPORT –ADMISSIBILITY OF MEDICAL REPORT
“By the provision of Section 249(3)(a) (b) and (c), a medical report is admissible even if it is not tendered through its maker, provided that the reason for the absence of the maker is provided.”
INTENTION – PROOF OF INTENTION
“Intention is a state of mind in which a person seeks to accomplish a given result through a course of action. It is therefore a mental attitude which can seldom be proved by direct evidence, but must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred. A state of mind existing at the time a person commits an offence may be shown by act, circumstances and inferences deducible therefrom.”
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – MEANING OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
“Mental attitude can seldom be proved by direct evidence. It must, ordinarily, be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred. True, indeed, the category of evidence known as circumstantial evidence, which is, more often than not, the best evidence, Obosi v State (1965) NMLR 119; Ukorah v State [1977] 4 SC 167; Lori v State(1980) NSCC 269; Onah v State [1985] 3 NWLR (pt. 12) 236; Ebenehi v State [2009] All FWLR (pt 486) 1825, 1832-1833; Ijioffor v. State [2001] 9 NWLR (pt 718) 371, 385, is the evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undersigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics, Ijioffor v State (supra) 385. The reason is not far-fetched. In their aggregate content, such circumstances lead cogently, strongly and unequivocally to the conclusion that the act, conduct or omission of the accused person caused the death of the deceased person, Idiok v State [2008] All FWLR (pt 421) 797, 818. Put simply, it means that there are circumstances which are accepted so as to make a complete and unbroken chain of evidence, Omotola and Ors v State [2009] 7 NWLR (pt 1139) 148, 178; (2009) LPELR – 2663 (SC) 42-43”.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – NATURE AND QUALITY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO GROUND A CONVICTION
“Where such circumstances are established to the satisfaction of the Court, they may be properly acted upon, Wills on Circumstantial Evidence [Seventh edition] 324; A. Okekeifere, Circumstantial Evidence in Nigerian Law (port Harcourt: Law-house Books, 2000) 1; Omotola v State (supra) 178. Thus, where there is no eye witness account or direct evidence of the commission of an offence, a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence, Igbale v State [2004] 15 NWLR (pt. 896) 314. However, such circumstantial evidence must point to only one conclusion, namely, that the offence had been committed and that it was the accused person who committed it. Dick v. C. O. P. [2009] 9 NWLR (pt 1147) 530, 551. However, there is a snag here. For the purpose of drawing an inference of an accused person’s guilt from circumstantial evidence, there must not be other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy that inference, Igho v State [1978] 3 SC 87; State v Edobor [1975] 9 -11 SC 69. Thus, all other factors and surrounding circumstances must be carefully considered for they may be enough to adversely affect the inference of guilt, Lori v State [1980] 8-11 SC 81; Udedibia v State [1976] 11 SC 133; Aigbadion v State [2000] 7 NWLR (pt. 666) 686. The explanation for this need for circumspection is simple; evidence that falls within this category may be fabricated to cast aspersion on other people, per Lord Normand in R v. Tepper (1952) 480, 489 approvingly adopted in State v Edobor [1975] 9-11 SC 69, 77. That is why a Court must properly appraise the circumstantial evidence adduced by the Prosecution before convicting an accused person thereon, Adepetu v State [1998] 9 NWLR (pt 565) 185; Iko v State [2001] FWLR (pt 68) 1161; [2001] 14 NWLR (pt 732) 221; Orji v State [2008] All FWLR (pt 422) 1093, 1107. It must be noted however that there is no yardstick by which any circumstantial evidence can be measured before a conviction can be entered against an accused person. Thus, each case depends on its own facts. However, one test which such evidence must satisfy is that it should lead to the guilt of the accused person and leave no degree to possibility or chance that other persons could have been responsible for the commission of the offence, Ijioffor v State(supra) 385; Ebenehi v State (supra) 1832.”
EVIDENCE – DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
“Direct evidence establishes a fact without making any inference to connect the evidence to the fact. Thus, direct evidence proves or disproves a fact directly. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires an inference to be made to establish a fact. “Inference” is “a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. Circumstantial evidence, however, does not point directly to a fact. In other words, an inference must be made, which would link the circumstantial evidence to the fact that the party using it, is trying to prove, which can make it a lot more powerful than direct evidence – see Lori & Anor V. State (1980) NSCC (Vol. 12) 269, wherein this Court, per Nnamani, JSC, expatiated on this principle and aptly too as follows: Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is said to be evidence of surrounding circumstances, which by undesigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say it is circumstantial. But the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction – – must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Prisoner, and no one else, is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt.”
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria1999
2. Criminal Procedure Code
3. Evidence Act
4. Penal Code
