Legalpedia Citation: (2024-03) Legalpedia 96629 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At KANO

Thu Mar 14, 2024

Suit Number: CA/KN/213C/2020

CORAM

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Usman Alhaji Musale Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

RASHIDA SAIDU MUHAMMAD

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, as the second wife of the deceased, Adamu Ali, entered the living quarters of the deceased around February 25th, 2019, and overheard him conversing with another woman on the telephone. Disturbed by what she heard, she reported it to PW2, her co-wife, who advised her not to be concerned. This scenario repeated, with the Appellant overhearing the deceased making promises of marriage to the same woman. Again, PW2 reassured her, citing the deceased’s right to marry up to four wives.Returning to find the deceased still on the phone, the Appellant confronted him, leading to a physical altercation during which the deceased fell from upstairs to his death. Subsequently, the Appellant was arrested, charged, and tried for culpable homicide punishable by death. The High Court of Kano State convicted her as charged and sentenced her to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the Appellant lodged the present appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced the Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant as to secure conviction for the offence of Culpable Homicide Punishable with death under Section 221(b) of the Penal Code?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

This is a criminal appeal. Our adversary criminal justice system is accusatorial, the onus is on the prosecution to establish the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA

STANDARD OF PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

“It is exoteric that in criminal trials, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. However, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt. When the evidence adduced is strong enough to leave only a remote probability in favor of the defendant, then the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the words of Oputa, JSC (of blessed memory) in BAKARE vs. THE STATE (1987) 3 S.C.1 or (1987) LPELR (714) 1 at 12-13:

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt stems from the compelling presumption of innocence inherent in our adversary system of criminal justice. To displace this presumption, the evidence of the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond the shadow of any doubt, that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged. Absolute certainty is impossible in any human adventure, including the administration of criminal justice. Proof beyond reasonable doubt means just what it says. It does not admit of plausible and fanciful possibilities, but it does admit of a high degree of cogency, consistent with an equally high degree of probability. As Denning, J. (as he then was) observed in Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL E.R. 373:

‘The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong as to leave only a remote possibility in his favor, which can be dismissed with the sentence-“of course, it is possible but not in the least probable,” the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.’’

Proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof of an offense with the certainty required in a criminal trial. That certainty is that the offense was committed, which is established by proving the essential ingredients of the offense, and that it is the person charged therewith that committed the offense. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA”

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

“The learned counsel on both sides of the divide have delineated the essential ingredients necessary to establish a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death, namely:

That the deceased is dead.

That the death of the deceased is the result of the act or omission of the accused person (the Appellant herein).

That the act or omission of the accused person (Appellant) which has caused the death of the deceased is intentional with full knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm is the probable consequence.

Reference: ILODIGWE vs. THE STATE (2012) LPELR (9342) 1 and UWAGBOE vs. THE STATE (2008) LPELR (3444) 1 at 29.

In order to secure a conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was caused directly or indirectly by the act of the accused person. The prosecution has to establish not only that the act of the accused person caused the death of the deceased but also that, in actual fact, the deceased died as a result of the act of the accused person to the exclusion of all other possibilities. It is settled law that where a person who is attacked dies on the spot or shortly afterwards, it is reasonable to infer that the injury inflicted on him as a result of the attack caused the death.

Reference: EDOHO vs. THE STATE (2010) LPELR (1015) 1 at 18-19. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA”

COURTS – PRIMARY DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURTS TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE – CONDUCT OF APPELLATE COURTS TO EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURTS

“The lower Court possesses the unparalleled advantage of directly witnessing, hearing, and observing the witnesses, enabling it to make deductions regarding their credibility based on their demeanor and body language. In contrast, an appellate Court faces a handicap in matters of credibility. This is due to the appellate Court’s confinement to the cold, printed Records. Moreover, assessing the credibility of witnesses is primarily the duty of the Judge at nisi prius, with a presumption that their findings are accurate and correct until proven otherwise.

References: UZIM vs. THE STATE (2019) LPELR (48983) 1 at 32, SUGH vs. THE STATE (1988) LPELR (3121) 1 at 15, OMILADE vs. THE STATE OF LAGOS (2020) LPELR (51807) 1 at 32-33, and OLADIRAN vs. THE STATE (2023) LPELR (60006) 1 at 25. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA”

CONTRADICTION – WHETHER EVERY CONTRADICTION IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IS FATAL TO THE CASE

“Now, it is established legal principle that not every trivial inconsistency or contradiction in the evidence presented by the Prosecution proves fatal to its case. The significance lies in whether such inconsistency or contradiction is substantial and fundamental to the main issues under consideration by the Court, thus capable of casting doubt. In such instances, the accused person is entitled to the benefit of the doubt arising from such contradiction or inconsistency.

References: SELE vs. THE STATE (1993) 1 NSCC 47 at 53, AFOLALU vs. THE STATE (2009) 3 NWLR (PT 1127) 160 at 183, ISIBOR vs. THE STATE (2002) LPELR (1553) 1 at 8-9, THEOPHILUS vs. THE STATE (1996) 3 NWLR (PT 423) 139, and AKINDIPE vs. THE STATE (2012) 16 NWLR (PT 1325) 94 at 133. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA”

CONTRADICTION – MEANING OF CONTRADICTION – WHEN EVIDENCE IS DEEMED TO BE CONTRADICTORY

“In OGIDI vs. THE STATE (2003) 9 NWLR (PT 824) 1 at 23-24, a definition of contradiction was provided, a definition later followed in WACHUKWU vs. OWUNWANNE (2011) LPELR (3466) 1 at 27-28:

“The word ‘contradiction’ is a straightforward English term. It originates from two Latin words, ‘contra’ and ‘deco-ere-dixi-dictum,’ meaning ‘to say the opposite’; hence ‘contradictum.’ A piece of evidence contradicts another when it affirms the opposite of what that evidence has stated, not merely when there is a minor discrepancy. Two pieces of evidence contradict one another when they are inherently inconsistent. Conversely, a discrepancy may arise when a piece of evidence either stops short, contains slightly more information than another piece, or includes minor differences in details.” – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA”

CONTRADICTIONS – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHERE THE CONTRADICTIONS LATCHED ONTO BY A PARTY ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL/FUNDAMENTAL TO THE MAIN ISSUE

“Accordingly, the contradictions emphasized by the Appellant lack substance and do not strike at the core issue of the trial before the lower Court. They also fail to undermine the essential elements of the offense charged, thus failing to raise any reasonable doubt. In conclusion, these inconsistencies or contradictions are insufficient to warrant overturning the decision of the lower Court.

References: OGIDI vs. THE STATE (supra), EGWUMI vs. THE STATE (2013) LPELR (20091) 1 at 25-26, NWANKWOALA vs. FRN (2018) LPELR (43891) 1 at 18-19, and MOHAMMED vs. THE STATE (2022) LPELR (57830) 1 at 40-43. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA”

MEDICAL EVIDENCE – WHERE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS NOT NECESSARY

“It appears to be well-established legal precedent that there are situations where medical evidence regarding the cause of death may not be required. The evidence presented indicates that upon the deceased’s arrival at the hospital following a fall from upstairs, he was pronounced dead immediately. Therefore, it is evident that he died instantaneously following the attack. It is a well-known legal principle that when a person dies immediately after an attack, the cause of death can reasonably be inferred from the attack itself. In other words, when the cause of death is apparent, medical evidence becomes unnecessary both practically and legally. This is particularly applicable in cases where death occurs instantaneously or shortly after the attack, as in the present matter.

References: BAKURI vs. THE STATE (1965) NMLR 163 at 164, BEN vs. THE STATE (2006) LPELR (770) 1 at 12-13, JIBRIN vs. THE STATE (2021) LPELR (56233) 1 at 34-35, and JIBRIN vs. KANO STATE (2023) LPELR (60433) 1 at 45-47. Therefore, it is not detrimental nor legally significant that a medical doctor was not summoned to testify. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA”

 

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – THE PRIMARY DUTY OF EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – CONDUCT OF APPELLATE COURTS TO EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURTS

“It is basic legal doctrine that the assessment of evidence and determination of its probative value fall within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. The trial Court, having had the opportunity to hear witness testimonies and observe their demeanor, typically retains its findings intact, as an appellate Court generally refrains from intervening unless those findings are demonstrated to be unreasonable:

ONOGWU vs. THE STATE (1995) 6 NWLR (PT 401) 276 at 552. In other words, an appellate Court ordinarily respects the trial Court’s factual determinations regarding witness credibility, unless it is evident that such determinations are unreasonable or stem from a flawed evaluation of the evidence.

SANYAOLU vs. THE STATE (1976) 5 SC 37, RABIU vs. THE STATE (1980) 8-11 SC 130, ADELUMOLA vs. THE STATE (1988) 1 NWLR (PT 73) 683, SUGH vs. THE STATE (1988) 2 NWLR (PT 77) 475, and THE STATE vs. NNOLIM (1994) 5 NWLR (PT 345) 394. In the present case, the lower Court’s findings and conclusions drawn from the evidence are deemed reasonable. The Appellant’s failure to demonstrate the unreasonableness of these findings signifies the lack of merit in this appeal.

References: SANDE vs. THE STATE (1982) 4 SC 41, THE STATE vs. AIBANGBEE (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 84) 548, and DIBIE vs. THE STATE (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 353) 83 at 102 and 110. – Per U. A. Ogakwu, JCA”

EVIDENCE – WHETHER EVIDENCE OF AN EYEWITNESS IS ONE OF THE WAYS OF PROVING THE OCCURRENCE OF AN EVENT

One of the most reliable ways of proving the occurrence of any event, including a criminal charge, is evidence of eyewitnesses to the event. – Per B. M. Ugo, JCA

MERE INCONSISTENCIES – CONDUCT OF COURTS TO MERE INCONSISTENCIES IN EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES

“…At worst, that is mere inconsistency in the evidence of PW2 and 3, and such is not unnatural nor unexpected in the natural scheme of things. In fact, it has been said that such minor variations in evidence of witnesses to an event even seem to be a ‘badge of truth’, for it goes to show that they are not tutored. (Ikemson v. State (1989) 3 (Pt. 110) 455 @ 479, paragraph G-11 (Oputa, JSC)). See also Mamuda v. State (2019) SNWI.R (Pt. 1164) 128 @ 141 (SC); State v. Jimoh Salawu (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 883 @ 913 (SC); Nwokoro v. Onuma (1999) 9 SCNJ 63 @ 75-76. – Per B. M. Ugo, JCA.”

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Penal Code
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT