FATIMA SANI VS THE STAT

Suit no: SC 586/2017

Legalpedia Electronic Citation: 2020) Legalpedia (SC) 14110

AREAS OF LAW:

 Appeal, Criminal Law And Procedure, Law Of Evidence, Practice And Procedure

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was charged at the High Court of Kebbi State, with the offence of Culpable Homicide contrary to Section 221 (b) of the Penal Code. Upon arraignment, she pleaded “not guilty, whereupon the Prosecution opened its case with three witnesses who testified and tendered four exhibits. The Appellant testified and called one witness. At the end of the trial, the Court convicted the accused person and sentenced her to death. Aggrieved by the conviction, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the judgment of the trial Court hence, a further appeal to the Supreme Court vide a Notice of Appeal. He contended that the Respondent’s failure to prove all the ingredients conjunctively rendered the Prosecution’s case unsustainable and that the lower court based their conclusion on mere suspicion that the Appellant was the only person with the deceased person; hence, she must be the person who killed the deceased person.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

• Whether from the evidence before the trial court, the respondent has proved the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant?

 

RATIONES

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

OFFENCE OF MURDER – ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER, WHICH MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN ORDER TO SECURE A CONVICTION

“My Lords, in Agu v State (2017) LPELR – 41664 (SC) 12 -14; A-B, this court noted that:

… it would seem obvious that, more than other aspects of ,our corpus juris, the offence of murder under the Criminal Code (culpable homicide punishable with death under the Penal Code) has been the subject of the generous and consistent espousal of this court in cases too numerous to mention here….[per Nweze, JSC]

In Tajudeen Iliyasu v The State (2015) LPELR -24403 (SC) 24 -26, G-C, speaking for this court, I intoned as follows:

The three constitutive elements or ingredients of the offence which must be proved in order to secure a conviction under this Section have been, generously, outlined in case law, Maigari v. State [2013] 6-7 MJSC (pt 11) 109, 125, citing Ochemeje v. The State [2008] SCNJ 143; Daniel’v. The State [1991] 8 NWLR (pt 443) 715; Obudu v. State [1999] 6 NWLR (pt. 1980 433; Gira v. State [1996] 4 NWLR (pt 428) 1, 125. Under the said section, the prosecution is obliged to prove: (1) that the deceased died; (2) that his/her death was caused by the accused; (3) that she/he intended to either kill the victim or cause her/him grievous bodily harm, These ingredients…have witnessed consistent espousal in many jurisdictions, for example, by English courts, R v. Hopwood (1913) 8 Cr. App. R. 143; Hyam v. DPP [1974] 2 All ER 41; Woolmington v. DPP (1935) AC 462; by Nigerian courts, Madu v. State [2012] 15 NWLR (pt 1324) 405, 443, citing Durwode v The State [2000] 15 NWLR (pt 691) 467; Idemudia v. State [2001] FWLR (pt 55) 549, 564; [1999] 7 NWLR (pt 610) 202; Akpanv. Stefe[2001] FWLR (pt 56) 735; [2000] 12 NWLR (pt 682) 607 and by courts in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, see, for example, R. v Nichols (1958) QWR 46; R v Hughes (1958) 84 CLR 170; Timbu Kolian v The Queen (1968) 42 A. L. J. R.; R. v. Tralka (1965) Qd, R. 225, (Queensland, Australia).

Scholars have seldom disagreed with judicial authorities on this question, C. O. Okonkwo, Okonkwo and Naish: Criminal Law in Nigeria (Second Edition) (Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd, *2009) 209 et seq; A. G. Karibi-Whyte, History and Sources of Nigerian Criminal Law (Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd, 1988) passim; Archbold’s Pleadings: Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases (Fourth Edition) (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1979) passim; K. S. Chukkol, The Law of Crimes in Nigeria (Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University Press Ltd, 1988); P, Ocheme, The Nigerian Criminal Law(Kaduna: Liberty Publications Ltd, 2006) 194 et seq.

[per Nweze, JSC]

-PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF FAILURE BY A PARTY TO OBJECT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS/HER EXTRA – JUDICIAL STATEMENT

“The appellant never challenged the voluntariness of his extra judicial statement. The only inference to be drawn is she authored the said statement voluntarily, Bassey v State [2012] 12 NWLR (pt 1314) 209; Isong v The State (2016) LPELR – 40609 {SC); Isah v  State (2017) LPELR – 43472 (SC); Bright v State [2013] 8 NWLR (pt 1302) 296; State v Salwu [2011] 18 NWLR (pt.1279) 883; Chukwu v State [2013] 4 NWLR (pt 1343) 1; Egwumi v State [2013] All FWLR (pt 678) 824. Surely, in the absence of any objection to the admissibility of the extra – judicial statement on the ground of its in-voluntariness in the trial court, the trial court, rightly, concluded that it was admissible”. –PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – DUTY OF COURTS WHEN RELYING ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON

“This must be for where direct evidence of eye witness is not available, the court may infer from the facts proved the existence of the facts that may, logically, tend to prove the guilt of an accused person from circumstantial evidence. However, great care must be taken not fall into serious error, Adepetu v State [1998] NWLR (pt. 565) 185”. –PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS – MODES OF PROVING AN OFFENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

“As it is well known, the methods of proof could either be by; direct evidence; circumstantial evidence and by reliance on confessional statement of an accused person voluntarily made. In the instant case, the circumstantial evidence could be seen from the nature of the wound, type of weapon used and the wound was inflicted, and the autopsy result from the doctor, which confirmed that the deceased was indeed killed by exhibit “A,” a pestle, Befo v State [2012] 8 NWLR (pt ) 213; Osho v State [2012] 8 NWLR (pt. 1302) 243; Bright v State (supra)”. –PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON ON HIS UNCORROBORATED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

“In Bright v State (supra), this court stated the conditions that must avail an uncorroborated confessional statement before it can ground a conviction of an accused person. According to the court:

A court can convict an accused on his uncorroborated confessional statement provided the following conditions co-exist:

• There is something outside the confession which shows that it may be true;
• The statement contained therein are likely to be true;
• The accused had the opportunity to have committed the offence; and
• The facts stated by the accused are consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and established at the trail.

The case of Ali v State [2012] 7 NWLR (pt.1319; is also relevant here. Indeed, the law is settled on when accused person’s confessional statement may amount to corroboration. According to the in Musa v State [2012] 3 NWLR (pt. 1286):

Corroboration may be found in free or voluntary confessional statement of an accused person. In other words, an admission of offence by accused person to other persons may amount to sufficient corroboration in law.

–PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER A COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON SOLELY ON HIS RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

“Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant wondered how exhibits 2 and 3 could be used as confessional statements to convict the appellant. The answer to this misconception can be found in Musa v State [2012] 3 NWLR (pt.1286) where the court noted that:

Confessional statement can only be used as a ground of conviction when an accused person confesses to a crime in the absence of an eyewitness, he can convict on his confession, if it is positive, direct and properly proved. Confession is the best way to prove commission of the offence by statement is admitted the prosecution job almost done because the confessional statement ends the conviction can be secured on free and voluntary.

Thus, a conviction of the accused person could be made not withstanding that he retracted the confession as in the instant case, Ismail v State [2011] 17 NWLR (pt ) ; Egboghonome v State (1993) 7 NWLR (pt 306) 383; Onwumerev State [1991] 4 NWLR (pt 186) 428’.- PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

WITNESS –WHETHER THE PROSECUTION IS OBLIGATED TO CALL A HOST OF WITNESSES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF PLACED ON HIM

“The truth is that the law does not impose a duty on the Prosecution to call all available witnesses or a host or a number of witnesses or indeed any particular witness in the discharge of the burden of proof placed on it by law, Osho v State [2012] 8 NWLR (pt 1302); Adajev State [1979] 6-9 SC 18, Okonofua v State [1981] 6-7 SC 1”- PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CAUSE OF DEATH – WHETHER A TRIAL COURT CAN INFER CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE ABSENCE OF A MEDICAL REPORT

“It is settled law that with or without medical report, a trial court can still infer the cause of death provided there is clear and sufficient evidence that the death of the deceased person was the direct result of the unlawful act of the accused person to the exclusion of all other reasonable possible causes, Onyia v State [2006] 11 (pt. 991) 267”.- PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CRIMINAL LIABILITY – BASIS OF THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

“Here, again, it is necessary to state that the criminal liability of the appellant was based on the natural consequence of his act or omission. Intent may also be proved positively by proof of the declaration of the accused as to his intent or inferentially. The learned trial Judge, after pointing out that all the circumstances of the case are relevant, including the nature of the wound, type of weapon used and the wound that was inflicted, stated that the express intention of the appellant could be found in her statement, exhibit “A.”

In the said exhibit, the appellant stated, categorically, that she killed her husband by hitting him on the head with a pestle but she did not intend to kill him. The deceased person was killed on his bed by the appellant who, apart from her confessional statement, was the only person with him at the time of the unfortune incident. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, right in holding that the appellant had the necessary intention to kill the deceased person as she is presumed a intend the natural consequences of her nefarious act.

The learned trial Judge, rightly, concluded that the Prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, having, rightfully, inferred that death was a probable, and not just a likely, consequence of the accused person’s act, Adamu Garba v. The State [1997] 3 SCNJ 68; Bakuri v. The State (1965) NMLR 163; Silas Sule v. The State (2009) LPELR -3125 (SC) 24, F-G; EJeka v. State [2003] 7 NWLR (pt 819) 408; Gams Bwash v. State [1972] 6 SC (Reprint) 55; (1972) LPELR-SC.104/1972; P. Ocheme, The Nigerian Criminal Law (Kaduna: Liberty Publications Ltd, 2006) 203; also, C. 0. Okonkwo, Okonkwo and Naish: Criminal Law in Nigeria (Second Edition) (supra) 221. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

DEFENCE OF INSANITY – PROOF OF THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY

“In law, the presumption is that the Appellant was sane. If in rebuttal the Appellant pleaded insanity, she had the onus to establish the fact to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The burden of establishing the rebuttal evidence was not discharged; with the trial Court rejecting the evidence of DW.2. – PER E. EKO, J.S.C

 

LAW OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CULPABLE HOMICIDE -ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A CHARGE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE

“It is settled that in a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death the three (3) elements to prove or establish are –

1. That a particular human being had died in unlawful or unnatural circumstance;
2. That the accused person caused the unlawful death of the deceased; and

ill. That the accused person had the mens-rea, the criminal intent, for the unlawful killing.

See Maikudi v. The State (2013) 12 NWLR (pt. 1368) 403 at 409. – PER E. EKO, J.S.C

 

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act, 2011

Penal Code