CORAM

---

HON JUSTICE M. P. ODILI

ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA     JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

PASTOR SUNDAY ALFA APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant as the Accused was arraigned before the Kogi State High Court, sitting at Okpo, for committing culpable homicide, an offence punishable under section 221(a) of the Penal Code. The Appellant, Pastor Sunday Alfa on the fateful day of 24th February 2014, left his bedroom and entered the bedroom of his wife, Rose Alfa, the deceased, at about 3:00am and thereafter, inflicted several cuts on her with the use of a cutlass. She suffered several injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The trial Court in its considered judgment convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed.

---

ISSUES

---

?    Whether it was right for the learned trial judge to convict the appellant of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death despite the failure by the prosecution to prove the said offence beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.?    Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the learned trial judge ought not to be reversed due to the court’s failure to fully consider the relevant defences available to the appellant.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL – ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL?

---

“It is the prosecution that has the burden throughout the trial, of proving the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt, as the burden never shifts, even if the statement of the accused person to the police, discloses an admission of the offence – Ochi Vs. State (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1027) 214 and Amala Vs. State (supra)”. PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

DEFENCE OF INSANITY – IT IS THE COURT THAT DETERMINES WHETHER AN ACCUSED PERSON WAS INSANE WHEN HE COMMITTED THE OFFENCE

---

“However, it is to be noted that it is solely for the judge to determine whether the accused person was indeed insane or suffering from insane delusion i.e. mentally deluded, at the time of committing the offence. So any medical report available to the court, is only a guide. It does not tie and bind the hands of the court. It should make the determination taking all the surrounding circumstances into consideration. Did the accused person prepare for the act? Was the act done in such a way that there was intention or desire to conceal it? Did the accused person try to avoid being detected or apprehended after he committed the act? When he was eventually arrested, did the accused make false statement? See Ani Vs. State (Supra) at 661. Besides, courts have to be careful in accepting evidence of insanity tendered by an accused person himself. This is important as all persons would more than likely, tender evidence of insanity in order to get away with crimes they have committed.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE – INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH – SECTION 221 OF THE PENAL CODE

---

“It is the law that there are three ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death, under section 221 of f the Penal Code. They are –
(1) the death of a human being has taken place (i.e. the deceased had died);
(2) the death of the deceased was caused by the accused person; and
(3) the act or omission of the accused person which caused the death of the deceased, was done intentionally to cause the death or that the accused person knew that death would be the probable, and not likely consequence of his act. See Maigari Vs. State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 439 at 466 – 467; Adekunle Vs. State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) at 736- All the three ingredients of the offence must be proved in order to sustain a conviction, as the absence of even one of them will result in a discharge and acquittal – Adavah Vs State (2007) 2 NCC 191 at 193 and Uwagboe Vs. State (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 606.”PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-TESTS FOR DETERMINING THE TRUTHFULNESS OR OTHERWISE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“In order to properly ascertain as to whether a confessional statement is true or not, it is some evidence outside the confessional statement itself that is looked. at – Nwaebonyi Vs. State (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 343) 130. And because the truthfulness of the confessional statement is paramount, the courts have evolved some tests which will help to determine its truth and whether the court can convict on a confessional statement that has been retracted – Dawa Vs. State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 236; Obierho Vs. State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 919) 644 and Onyenye Vs, State (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1324) 586, 619. The tests include –
(a) Is there any evidence outside the confessional statement to show that it is true?
(b) Was it corroborated?
(c) Are the facts contained in the confessional statement true as can be tested?
(d) Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence?
(e) Was the confession possible?
(f) Was the confession consistent with other facts which had been ascertained?
Apart from the truthfulness of a confessional statement, its voluntariness must also be ascertained, all in a bid to avoid convicting an innocent person. So once an accused person alleges that his confessional statement was not voluntary, then the court must conduct a trial-within trial, to ascertain the position before it can even be admitted in evidence. ”PER A. D.YAHAYA, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

INSANITY-DEFENCE OF INSANITY UNDER SECTION 51 OF THE PENAL CODE.

---

“By section 51 of the Penal Code,
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”
It is clear here therefore, that insanity is contemplated and even if an insane person was aware of his act, if he was mentally incapable of knowing that his act was wrong or contrary to law, he would still be entitled to the protection accorded by the section. The insanity has to be at the time of committing the act, and it can be permanent or temporary and may be in the form of an insane delusion in respect of a person who is otherwise sane. It is therefore obvious, that insane delusion is a part of insanity.” PER A. D.YAHAYA, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

FINDINGS OF FACTS –WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY A TRIAL COURT CAN BE ABANDONED

---

“A trial court has the advantage of having evidence led before it. It thus, is in a vintage position of seeing, hearing and observing the demeanour of witnesses that testify before it Its findings of facts in that regard cannot be lightly jettisoned and the rebuttable presumption is that they are right – Adeyemo Vs. State (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt 1485) 311 at 334-335”. PER A. D.YAHAYA, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

DEFENCE OF MISTAKE – WHEN AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN SET UP THE DEFENCE OF MISTAKE

---

“If an accused person acted honestly and with reasonable belief, of a given fact, he can set up the defence of mistake provided that what he believed was true, would have justified his act. The defence is such that it will exculpate him of the crime. The story he put up, must be true, cogent and capable of being believed. It must not be a sham story such that it is incredible or an insult to the intelligence of an average person – Aiguokhon Vs. State (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 873) 565.
Honest belief on the part of the accused person, must disclose good faith and a complete absence of negligence or recklessness in the belief of things at the time of committing the act. The surrounding circumstances, must disclose reasonably, that his mind would be affected as to induce that belief.” PER A. D.YAHAYA, J.C.A.<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act, 2011(amended)Penal Code Laws of Kogi State

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT