May 11, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2014) Legalpedia (CA) 78316 In the Court of Appeal Wed Feb 12, 2014 Suit Number: CA/K/289/C/2013 CORAM OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL. PARTIES […]
CORAM
OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
PARTIES
AMINA MUSA APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was charged and convicted on a three count charge of culpable homicide. She was accused of causing the death of three different Children by poisoning contrary to section 223 of the Penal Code law of Jigawa State. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and was convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on each count under a lesser offence pursuant to section 218 of the Criminal Procedure code and section 225 of the Penal Code. The sentences were to run concurrently. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed this appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether, based on the evidence led by the prosecution before the Lower trial Court and the findings made by the Court, it can be said that the prosecution has proved it case beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether failure of the Lower trial judge in not sufficiently assessing the evidence before him has led to miscarriage of justice?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT-WHETHER A CASE CAN BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE USE OF DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
“It is settled law that a case can be proved beyond reasonable doubt either by direct eye witness account or by circumstantial evidence from which the guilt of a defendant can be inferred or by a free and voluntary confessional statement of guilt which is direct and positive.” PER ABIRU JCA
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT-WHAT AMOUNTS TO PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt is “not proof to the guilt” and is thus not synonymous with proof beyond all iota of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the defendant with compelling and conclusive evidence to a degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. Thus, if the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence “of course it is possible, but not in the least probable”, the case will be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.” PER ABIRU JCA
CRIMINAL TRIAL-NATURE OF CHALLENGES TO THE TESTIMONY OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS THAT WILL BE FATAL TO THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
“In a criminal trial, it is settled law that to be fatal to the case of the prosecution, challenges to the testimony of a prosecution witness must relate to material facts and must be substantial, and not be on peripheral and inconsequential matters.” PER ABIRU JCA
APPEAL-WHETHER FAILURE OF A RESPONDENT TO CANVAS AN ARGUMENT IN AN APPEAL IS A GUARANTEE THAT THE APPEAL WILL SUCCEED
“The fact that a Respondent did not canvas any argument in an appeal is never a guarantee that the appeal will succeed, as the Court, in its appreciation of the law and evidence in the case may find the arguments of the Appellant unreliable and incapable of sustaining the appeal.” PER MBABA JCA
CONFESSION-WHETHER A CONFESSION IS INADMISIBLE MERELY BECAUSE OF A DENIAL BY THE DEFENDANT
“It is settled law that a confession does not become inadmissible merely because a defendant denies having made it. The denial of a statement made by a defendant to the police is only an issue of fact to be decided in the judgment and it is not an issue which affects admissibility of the statement”. PER ABIRU JCA
BURDEN OF PROOF-WHEN THE PROSECUTION CAN BE SAID TO HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
“If in a criminal trial, on the whole of the evidence before it, the court is left in a state of doubt, the prosecution would have failed to discharge the burden of proof which the law lays upon it and the defendant will be entitled to an acquittal. PER ABIRU JCA
BURDEN OF PROOF-ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES
“It is settled that the burden of proving that any person has committed a crime or a wrongful act rests on the person who asserts it and this is, more often than not, the prosecution. Where the commission of crime by a party is in issue in any proceedings be it civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging the burden, all the essential ingredients of the crime alleged must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts”. PER ABIRU JCA
APPEAL-WHETHER AN APPELLANT CAN RAISE ON APPEAL A CASE DIFFERENT FROM THAT RAISED AT THE TRIAL COURT-GROUND OF APPEAL AND ISSUES MUST BE FOUNDED ON DECISION OF LOWER COURT
“Appellant cannot raise, on appeal, a case different from what he had at the trial court; that the rule governing appeal is that both the ground of appeal and the issue therefrom must be founded upon and rooted in the decision of the trial court, appealed against.” PER MBABA JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-TEST THAT A RETRACTED CONFESSION SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO BEFORE A COURT CAN ACT ON IT
“What is required is that before the court would believe and act on such a retracted confession it should subject the confessional statement to the following tests:
i. whether there is anything outside the confession which shows that it may be true;
ii. whether it is corroborated in any way;
iii. whether the relevant statements of facts made in it are mostly true as far as they can be tested;
iv. whether the defendant had the opportunity of committing the offence;
v. whether the confession is possible; and
vi. whether the alleged confession is consistent with other facts that have been ascertained and established.” PER ABIRU JCA
CULPABLE HOMICIDE-REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
“The third requirement of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death is -whether the Appellant caused the death of the deceased intentionally or with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. This is what is known as “specific intention” necessary for sustaining a murder charge. It is the law that a person intends the natural consequences of his action and if there was an intention to cause grievous bodily harm and death results, then the defendant must be held culpable for the offence of murder.” PER ABIRU JCA
GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON-WAYS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
In the case of BLESSING VS. FRN (supra), this court held that:
“The law recognizes three ways of proving the guilt of an accused person, namely:
(a) Confessional Statement
(b) Evidence of eye witness and
(c) Circumstantial evidence that pins the accused to the crime. Out of the three;
Confession, the equivalent of admission in civil proceedings, is the most potent and reliable mode of establishing crime”. PER MBABA JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-EFFECT OF FAILURE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON TO CHALLENGE VOLUNTARINESS OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“The law is that where an accused person does not challenge the making of a confessional statement but merely gives oral evidence which is inconsistent with or contradicts the contents of the statement, the oral evidence should be treated as unreliable and liable to be rejected and the contents of the confessional statement upheld unless a satisfactory explanation of the inconsistency is proffered.” PER ABIRU JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE COURT CAN RELY ON THE RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED TO CONVICT HIM
“Even where an appellant had retracted his confessional statement at the trial, the court can still rely on the retracted confessional statement to convict him, where the statement is a direct, positive disclosure of facts that pin down the Accused person to the offence.” PER MBABA JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-IMPEACHMENT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BY AN ACCUSED PERSON
“It is settled law that during trial, an accused person who desires to impeach his statement is duty bound to establish that his earlier confessional statement cannot be true by showing any of the following (i) that he did not in fact make any such statement as presented; or (ii) that he was not correctly recorded; or (iii) that he was unsettled in mind at the time he made the statement; or (iv) that he was induced to make the statement.” PER ABIRU JCA
MURDER-ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS WHICH THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION
“A charge of culpable homicide punishable with death is the same as a charge of murder and it has been held in a plethora of cases that the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove in order to secure a conviction are (i) that the deceased died; (ii) that the death of the deceased resulted from the act of the defendant; and (iii) that the defendant caused the death of the deceased intentionally or with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence – see, for example, SULE VS STATE (2009) 19 NWLR (PT 1169) 33, NKEBISI VS STATE (2010) 5 NWLR (PT 1188) 471, MBANG VS STATE (2010) 7 NWLR (PT 1194) 431, USMAN VS STATE (2011) 3 NWLR (PT 1233) 1, ULUEBEKA VS STATE (2011) 4 NWLR (PT 1237) 358, ILODIGWE VS STATE (2012) 18 NWLR (PT 1331) 1. The Prosecution must meet the above ingredients through credible evidence. The three ingredients must co-exist and where one of them is either absent or tainted with any doubt, then the charge is said not to be proved.” PER ABIRU JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-WHEN AN ACCUSED PERSON WHO INTENDS TO OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT CAN RAISE SAME
“The law is also trite that an accused person, who objects to the admission of his confessional statement on account of involuntariness, has to raise the objection, timeously, at the time of tendering the same, and call for a trial-within-trial, to resolve the issue of voluntariness or otherwise of the confessional statement.” PER MBABA JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT AS THE BEST EVIDENCE
“A confessional statement is the best evidence, as it comes from the Accused person to establish the truth of the case against him. It also implies a self entanglement in the web of the offence.” PER MBABA JCA
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE-WHETHER THE COURT CAN DRAW NECESSARY INFERENCES AS TO THE CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AUTOPSY REPORT
“Even where there is no autopsy report or an autopsy report is inconclusive, a Court has the duty to examine the evidence before it and draw necessary inferences as to the cause of death.” PER ABIRU JCA
CASES CITED
Ahmed Vs Nigerian Army (2011) 1 NWLR (PT 1227) 89Ajayi Vs State (2013) 9 NWLR (PT 1360) 589Akpa Vs State (2009) 39 WRN 27 (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1105) 72Alarape Vs The State (2001) FWLR (PT. 41) 1872 AT 1875Azu Vs State (1993) 6 NWLR (PT 299) 303Ben Vs State (2006) 16 NWLR (PT 1006) 582Blessing VS FRN (2013) 12 WRN 36Dele Vs State (2011) 1 NWLR (PT 1229) 508Egbedu Vs State (1991) 11 – 12 SC 98Egboghonome Vs State (1993) 7 NWLR (PT 306) 383Ehot Vs State (1993) 4 NWLR (PT 290) 644Ekpoisong Vs State (2009) 1 NWLR (PT 1122) 354Emeka Vs State (2001) 14 NWLR (PT 734) 666Famakinwa Vs State (2013) 7 NWLR (PT 1354) 597Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Iweka (2013) 3 NWLR (PTL341) 285Gabriel Vs State (1989) 5 NWLR (PT 122) 457Goodwill & Trust Inv. Ltd Vs Witt & Bush Ltd (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 567) 517Hassan Vs State (2001) 15 NWLR (PT 735) 184Ilodigwe Vs State (2012) 18 NWLR (PT 1331) 1Iregu Vs State (2013) 12 NWLR (PT 1367) 92Isiekwe Vs State (1999) 9 NWLR (PT 617) 43Iwunze Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013) 1 NWLR (PT 1324) 119Jeremiah Vs State (2012) 14 NWLR (PT 1320) 248Kabiru Vs Attorney General, Ogun State (2009) 5 NWLR (PT 1134) 209Kazeem Vs State (2009) WRN 43Lori Vs State (1980) 8-11 SC 81 at 95-96Mbang Vs State (2010) 7 NWLR (PT 1194) 431Momoh Vs Umoru (2011) LPELR SC 63/2004Musa Vs State (2013) 9 NWLR (PT 1359) 214 Njoku Vs State (2013) 2 NWLR (PT 1339) 548Nigeria Yeast and Alcohol Manufacturing Co. Plc Vs All Motors (Nig) Plc (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 600) 1226Nigerian Navy Vs Lambert (2007) 18 NWLR (PT 1066) 300NNPC VS Aminu (2013) LPELR 21396 (CA)Nwachukwu Vs State (2004) 17 NWLR (PT 902) 262Nwokearu Vs State (2010) 15 NWLR (PT 1215) 1Obodo Vs Ogba (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 54) 1; (1987) LPELR SC 95/1986Oche Vs State (2007) 5 NWLR (PT 1027) 214Oforlete Vs State (2000) 12 NWLR (PT 631) 415Ogoala Vs State (1991) 2 NWLR (PT 175) 509Oguno Vs State (2011) 7 NWLR (PT 1246) 314Ojemen Vs Momodu (1993) 1 NWLR (PT. 323) 685Oji VS FRN (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 668) 920Okoroh Vs State (1990) NWLR (Pt. 125) 128Oladotun Vs State (2010) 15 NWLR (PT 1217) 490Omojuh VS FRN (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 415) 1656Oseni Vs Bajuli (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 511) 813Oseni Vs State (2012) LPELR SC 14/2011Ossai VS FRN (2012) LPELR 1969 CA; (2013) 13 WRN 87Osetola Vs State (2012) 17 NWLR (PT 1329) 251Osuagwu Vs State (2009) 1 NWLR (PT 1123) 523Osung Vs State (2012) 18 NWLR (PT 1332) 256Sabi Vs State (2011) 14 NWLR (PT 1268) 421State Vs Ajie (2000) 11 NWLR (PT 678) 434 State Vs Salawu (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1279) 883Stephen John & Anor Vs The State (2011) LPELR SC 269/2010Sule Vs State (2009) 17 NWLR (PT 1169) 33Udosen Vs State (2007) 4 NWLR (PT 1023) 125Unilorin VS Olawepo (2012) 52 WRN 42Usman Salahudeen Vs The State (2013) LPELR CA/K/l/C/2012Yusuf Vs The State (2012) LPELR 7878 (CA)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Court of Appeal Rules 2011
3. The Penal Code, Cap 107 Laws of Jigawa State 1998
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT