CORAM

---

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN

JOHN INYANG OKORO

ABDU ABOKI

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA

---

PARTIES

---

ISHAYA SANSANI

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, ACTION, COURT, EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant as the 1st accused was arraigned alongside two other accused persons before the trial Court on the 4th day of November, 2008, on a charge of criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with Sections 97 and 221 of the Penal Code Law respectively, to which he pleaded not guilty.

The Respondent in proof of its case against the Appellant and the other accused persons, called five (5) witnesses and tendered several documents which were admitted in evidence, amongst which are the extra-judicial confessional statements of the Appellant which were admitted and marked as Exhibits 3, 3A and 5. The confessional statements of the Appellant Exhibit 3, 3A and 5 were admitted in evidence through PW4 and PW5 without objection from the Appellant or his counsel. The Appellant testified as DW1 in his defence and called no other witness. After the close of the respective parties’ cases, and addresses of Counsel, in a considered judgment, the learned trial Court found and held, that the Respondent had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was guilty of the said offences of criminal conspiracy and a lesser offence of culpable homicide not punishable with death. It therefore convicted the Appellant of the said offences of criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide not punishable with death and sentenced him to one (1) year imprisonment on Count 1 dealing with criminal conspiracy and five (5) years for the offences of culpable homicide not punishable with death, both sentences to run concurrently.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, appealed against the same to the Court below via his Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 17th day of May, 2011. Upon considering the respective Briefs of Argument filed and exchanged by the parties, the Court below dismissed the appeal and further dissatisfied Appellant has come before the Supreme Court upon a Notice of Appeal containing five (5) grounds.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether or not from the totality of the facts and law, the lower Court was justified to have found the appellant culpable and thereby convicted him of a lesser offence than the one he was actually charged with.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF – ON WHOM LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

---

“As a starter, I need to restate the oft quoted principle that in all criminal trials, the onus of proving the guilt of any accused person over the commission of a crime lies on the prosecution and that duty gets to the prosecution establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt which is not akin to proof beyond all shadow of doubt. This requirement is achieved by ensuring that all necessary and vital essential elements of the charge are proved by evidence. See Okoro JSC in The State v. James Gwangwan (2015) 13 NWLR (pt.1477) 600 at 621; Yongo v. Commissioner of Police (192) LPELR-3528 (SC), (1992) 4 SCNJ 113; (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt.257) 36; Ogundiyan v. State (1991) LPELR-2333 (SC); (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.181) 519; Alonge v. IGP (1959) 4 FSC 203; (1959) SCNLR 516; Babuga v State (1996) LPELR-701 (SC); (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.460) 279. See also the case of MOHAMMED IBRAHIM vs THE STATE (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt.1469) 164 at 192.” – Per PETER-ODILI, JSC

 

---

PROOF OF GUILT – WAYS OF ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

---

“The guides as provided in a large number of decided cases that in all criminal trials, the guilt of an accused person for the commission of an offence can be established by any one or more of the following methods or ways: –

1.By eye witness evidence.

2.By a free and voluntary confessional statement of the accused person; and

3.By circumstantial evidence.

Reference is made to the following cases:

1.SUNDAY UDOR vs. STATE (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1422) 548 at 561 para B

2.AKEEM AGBOOLA vs THE STATE (2013) 11 NWLR (Pti366) 619 at 648 paras A-C

3.EMEKA vs STATE (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734) 666 at 683 pars G-H.”- Per PETER-ODILI, JSC

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHOM LIES THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“By virtue of the provisions of Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, and that of Section 135 of the Evidence Act, the onus of proving the commission of the offences alleged against the Appellant, lies on the prosecution in this case represented by the Respondent, more so, the Appellant having pleaded not guilty to the two counts against him. It therefore clearly lies at the door of the Respondent to prove all the ingredients of the offences with which the Appellant was charged in respect to the counts of criminal conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with death.” – Per PETER-ODILI, JSC

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT PROPERLY PROVED AND ADMITTED

---

“… the extra-judicial confessional statements of the Appellant were admitted in evidence without objection and since the said statements are confessional in nature, they are relevant and having been voluntarily made, they are admissible and having been so admitted, the Court was entitled to accord them full weight and consideration in the determination of whether the Appellant is guilty of the offences he was charged with.” – Per PETER-ODILI, JSC

 

---

FINDINGS/DECISIONS OF COURT – EFFECT OF FAILURE OF APPELLANT TO CHALLENGE FINDINGS/DECISIONS OF A TRIAL COURT

---

“The lower Court stated that though the beating was an unlawful and rash act but could not amount to culpable homicide punishable with death. The Court below held that the Appellant did not challenge these findings of fact and therefore the law presumes him as having accepted those findings, and are thus bound by them. The Appellant still did not challenge the same firm holding in this appeal. As such by the failure of non-challenge to those findings of the Court below, and by several decisions of this Court, the Appellant is bound by those findings. I refer to the case of ALHAJI TSOHO AMALE VS SOKOTO LOCAL GOVT. & ORS (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 181 at 197-198.” – Per PETER-ODILI, JSC

 

---

MEDICAL EVIDENCE – ON WHEN THE NEED TO PRODUCE MEDICAL REPORT IS NOT MANDATORY

---

“Medical report is not a sine qua non to establish the guilt of the Appellant when there was other evidence. Suffice to state that non-production of medical report or the absence of the medical personnel is not mandatory, in this appeal, when the cause of death is already known. It is not the law that a hard object must be proved to have been used to inflict the grievous bodily harm as contended by the appellant.”- Per PETER-ODILI, JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

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

Evidence Act, 2011

Criminal Procedure Code

Penal Code Law of Kaduna State

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT