CORAM

---

Uwani Musa Abba Aji JSC

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JSC

Stephen Jonah Adah JSC

---

PARTIES

---

BATURE HASSAN

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, HOMICIDE LAW, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, ARMED ROBBERY, WITNESS TESTIMONY, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant and two others were charged with conspiracy, armed robbery, and culpable homicide at the High Court of Jigawa State. On July 2, 2016, at about 2:00 am, the appellant and his co-accused attacked one Mai Unguwa Idi (deceased) and his wife in their home at Gidan Maza village. The attackers were armed with guns, clubs, and machetes.

They beat the victims, burned the deceased with nylon fireballs, and stole his motorcycle and mobile phones. The deceased was taken to Gumel General Hospital and later referred to Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, where he died the same day. The appellant was later arrested after being pursued and found at a co-accused’s house with the stolen motorcycle. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment for conspiracy, 21 years for armed robbery, and death for culpable homicide. The Court of Appeal affirmed these convictions, leading to this appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

2. The Supreme Court affirmed that medical evidence is not essential to prove cause of death where death follows immediately or shortly after an attack.

3. The court held that circumstantial evidence, including the doctrine of recent possession, sufficiently linked the appellant to the crimes.

4. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld as there was no perversity shown.

5. The conviction and sentences were affirmed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming that the prosecution proved the necessary ingredients of culpable homicide punishable with death beyond reasonable doubt.?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming that the prosecution proved the necessary ingredients of armed robbery and criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF OF DEATH – NECESSITY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE:

---

“The law is trite that medical evidence is not necessary to prove that a human being had died or its cause, in all cases. The evidence of PW1 was sufficient in proving that her husband died and has been buried.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JSC

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – STANDARD REQUIRED:

---

“The well-settled position of the law is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the charge(s) against any defendant before a trial Court with credible evidence. In essence, the prosecution has a duty to adduce credible evidence to prove the ingredients of the offence(s) for which a defendant stands trial.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JSC

 

---

CAUSE OF DEATH – MEDICAL EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT:

---

“To establish cause of death, the position of the law is that as much as medical evidence is desirable, it is clearly not a sine qua non as cause of death may be established by sufficient satisfactory and conclusive evidence other than medical evidence.”- Per Mohammed JSC

 

---

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – STANDARD OF PROOF:

---

“Circumstantial evidence may ground a conviction where it is unequivocal, positive and points irresistibly to the guilt of the accused person.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JSC

 

---

DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION – APPLICATION AND EFFECT:

---

“By the doctrine of recent possession, if a person is found in possession of property recently stolen, the presumption is that he is either the thief or knew the property to be stolen.”- Per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC

 

---

IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED – RECOGNITION EVIDENCE:

---

“The position of the law is that the identity of a Defendant will not be in doubt if there is evidence before the Court showing the opportunity the witness had to identify the Defendant. Such evidence should however be received with caution and weighed against other evidence.”- Per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC

 

---

INFERENCE OF DEATH – CIRCUMSTANCES PERMITTING:

---

“Where the cause of the death is obvious, medical report ceases to be of any practical necessity in murder cases.” – Per Stephen Jonah Adah JSC

 

---

NUMBER OF WITNESSES – PROSECUTION’S BURDEN:

---

“The law does not impose any obligation on the prosecution to call a host of witnesses to prove its case, all it needs to do is call enough material witnesses to prove its case.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JSC

 

---

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVICTION:

---

“It must be evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a preposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It must be cogent, complete and unequivocal to the point of being so compelling that it must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the defendant and no one else has both the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime.” – Per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC

 

---

MEDICAL EVIDENCE – WHEN DISPENSABLE:

---

“In cases where a man was attacked with lethal weapon and he died on the spot, cause of death can properly be inferred that the wound inflicted caused the death.”- Per Akintan JSC

 

---

RECENT POSSESSION – PRESUMPTION AND BURDEN:

---

“The proximity of the time of possession to the theft seems to be an essential requirement of the presumption whether the appellant is the thief, or received them with knowledge that they were stolen goods.”- Per Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC

 

---

WITNESS TESTIMONY – SUFFICIENCY OF SINGLE WITNESS:

---

“The evidence of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to ground a conviction. What is important is not the number but the quality of the evidence of the witness(es) called.”- Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JSC

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE:

---

“The appellant herein has been unable to show how the concurrent findings of the two Courts were perverse not based on available evidence or had occasioned a miscarriage of justice; which are the only reasons for upsetting the concurrent findings of the two Courts by this Court.” – Per Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

 Penal Code Law of Jigawa State (Sections 97, 298, and 221)

 Evidence Act, 2011 (Sections 135, 138, 167(a))

 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT