COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V PHILEMON SIMON

Legalpedia Citation: (2024-12) Legalpedia 15513 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

Mon Dec 2, 2024

Suit Number: CA/K/194/C/2023

CORAM

onyekachi aja otisi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-adejumo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muslim Sule Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

APPELLANTS

PHILEMON SIMON

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent was charged with criminal
conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with death. He was alleged to have
conspired with a co-defendant to beat one Yunana Abuks to death with sticks on
January 8, 2021, at Ungwan Katung Dutse, Fadan Kagoro, Kaura Local Government
Area of Kaduna State. The trial court discharged and acquitted the Respondent,
leading to this appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment discharging and acquitting the Respondent

ISSUES

Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with death against the Respondent.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – REQUIREMENT IN CRIMINAL TRIALS:

“By virtue of the provisions of
Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, for a crime to result in a conviction,
the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Unless the burden
on the prosecution is discharged beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution is
not entitled to succeed.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – MEANING:

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does
not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the
community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of
justice.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE – METHODS OF PROOF:

“The evidence required to establish
the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death, as provided under
Section 190 (b) of the Penal Code Law of Kaduna State, 2017, can be grouped
into three: 1. Direct evidence of an eye witness; 2. Circumstantial evidence;
and 3. Confessional statement, or 4. By the combination of all or any of the
above methods.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

CONFESSION – DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS:

“A confessional statement must be
clear, precise and unequivocal. In considering whether a statement qualifies as
a confessional statement, a trial Judge must examine the totality of the
statement.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

WITNESS CREDIBILITY – EVALUATION:

“In my considered opinion, the
evidence of PW1 was not credible. The deceased was his uncle…yet, PW1 walked
away from the scene, without doing anything positive, except entreat with the
persons beating him to stop.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

CAPITAL OFFENCE – STANDARD OF PROOF:

“The offence of culpable homicide
punishable with death is a capital offence, therefore, the prosecution must
ground their case on credible and unshakeable evidence to avoid causing the
wrath of the law to descend on innocent persons.” – Per Onyekachi Aja
Otisi, J.C.A.

CAUSAL LINK – REQUIREMENT OF PROOF:

“The Appellant, therefore, failed to
establish a causal link between the act of the Respondent and the death of the
deceased.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

CONSPIRACY – PROOF REQUIREMENT:

“The Appellant failed to establish
that the Respondent conspired with his co-defendant to cause the death of the
deceased. The facts presented by the Appellant were insufficient for the Court
to infer conspiracy or a communicated common purpose to cause the death of the
deceased.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – PRACTICAL APPLICATION

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt here,
means it is a situation where the evidence adduced must show that it is the
accused and only the accused who could have and infact did it.” – Per
Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo, J.C.A.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE – IMPORTANCE IN HOMICIDE:

“The cause of death of the deceased
may have become apparent with the help of medical investigation, by way of a
post mortem examination, and medical evidence, but this was not part of the
Appellant’s case.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

STATEMENT ADMISSION – JUDICIAL APPROACH:

“Where the explicit facts of the
statement do not unequivocally satisfy the requirements of a confessional
statement, a trial Judge will be in error in admitting such a statement as a
confessional statement.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

INADMISSIBLE CONFESSION – EFFECT:

“It could however, if it has no other
defects, be admitted as an ordinary statement and be relied upon as a basis for
conviction.” – Per Onyekachi Aja Otisi, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE EVALUATION – SPECULATIVE TESTIMONY:

“The evidence of PW3 that Exhibit A
was the stick that was used to beat the deceased, is at best speculative, as
there was no eyewitness account to that effect.” – Per Onyekachi Aja
Otisi, J.C.A.