CORAM

---

HON. JUSTICE A. A. B. GUMEL JCA

HON. JUSTICE M. DANJUMA JCA

HON. JUSTICE A. I. BANJOKO JCA

---

PARTIES

---

HAMZA MOHAMMED BANDALE

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant accosted the deceased (Aishatu Abubakar) with the intention of raping her and PW3 attempted defending her. The Appellant in furtherance of his intentions pulled out a knife to stab PW3 who stepped away and the attempt landed on the deceased thereby causing her death.

The Respondent charged the Appellant with criminal conspiracy to commit culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 97; attempted rape under Section 95, abduction under Section 273, and culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code, respectively.

In a well-considered judgment, the learned trial judge finds the Appellant guilty for the offences of abduction, attempted rape and culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 273, 95 and 221 of the Penal Code. The trial court accordingly sentenced him to five (5) years imprisonment with option for abduction under Section 273, five (5) years for attempted rape under Section 95, and to death by hanging for the offence of culpable homicide with death under Section 221 of the penal code.

Aggrieved by the decision the Appellant filed the instant appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the evidence on the record supports the conviction of the Appellant for the offence of the culpable homicide punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CULPABLE HOMICIDE – THE INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH

---

The settled position of the law is that to prove the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 221 (b) of the Penal code, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients:

1. That the death of a human being has actually taken place;

2. That such death has been caused by the accused person;

3. That the act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: the accused knew or has reason to know that death would be the probable and not only the likely consequence of his act or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.

See also the case of Musa V. State (Supra), Hassan V. State (Supra), Bamaiyi V. The State (2021) LPELR-56435 (CA), Ezra V. The State (2021) LPELR-56238 (CA). – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

 

---

INTENTION – HOW INTENTION IS DETERMINED IN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

---

The law is long settled by plethora of authorities that a man intended the natural consequences of his action. The intention is the purpose or design with which an act is performed. It is the fore knowledge of the act coupled with the desire to do the act. The fore knowledge and the desire from the cause of the act insofar as they fulfill themselves through the operation of will.

A man’s intention is usually very difficult if not impossible to prove, for even the devil has not

been able to know or red a man’s intention. A man’s intention in the absence of a clear confession invariably can only be inferred from his conduct and surrounding circumstances within which he acts. It is from the manifestation of his conduct that his intention can be ascertained. See the case of Isah V. The State (2018) LPELR-46636 (CA).

Therefore, to determine a man’s intention in the absence of a clear confession from him, is to look at his conduct or action and draw a plausible inference of his intention from the natural consequence of his action. Founded on the maxim that the guilty mind instigates the guilty act or flows into the guilty act, the act of a person is proof of his mens rea and this is why the law presumes that a man intends the natural and probable consequences of his act and is deemed to know the natural consequence of his action.

In the case of Sunday Udosen V. The State (2007) LPELR-3311 (SC), it was held thus:

“Under section 319 of the criminal code of Eastern Nigeria, 1963 under which the Appellant was charged, it is necessary that the prosecution must show evidence of intent to commit murder. The section provides: “316. Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say:

‘(1) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed, or that of some other person;

(2)if the other offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous harm; (3) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such nature as to be likely to endanger human life; (4) if the offender intends to do grievous harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such offence; (5) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering things for either of the purposes last aforesaid; (6) if death is caused by willfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder. In this second case, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed. In the third case, it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person. In the three last cases it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result”.

Per OGUNTADE, JSC (PP. 17-18, Paras. C-D) – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

 

---

MURDER – MEANING OF MURDER

---

In its full meaning, murder in the act of killing a person by another person, purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently… – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Penal Code

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT