UMARU BAWA V. THE STATE

CORAM

Jamilu yammama tukur JSC

Tijjani abubakar JSC

Abubakar sadiq umarJSC

Emmanuel akomaye agim JSC

Mohammed baba idris JSC

PARTIES

UMARU BAWA

APPELLANTS 

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, HOMICIDE, PENAL CODE, PROVOCATION, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case involves an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Sokoto Division delivered on November 19, 2020. The lower Court had dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Trial High Court of Kebbi State, which convicted the Appellant for the offence of culpable homicide contrary to Section 221(b) of the Penal Code and sentenced him to death by hanging.

The incident occurred on June 22, 2014, at Gaza Village in Bagudo Local Government Area of Kebbi State. The Appellant, Umaru Bawa, was charged with causing the death of one Ibrahim Yahaya by hitting him with a wood on the head several times, thereby inflicting severe head injury. The deceased went into coma as a result of the injury and subsequently died.

During the trial, the prosecution presented six witnesses (PW1-PW6), while the Appellant testified on his own behalf without calling any witnesses. Three exhibits were tendered: the wood used in assaulting the deceased (Exhibit A) and the Appellant’s extra-judicial statements (Exhibits B-B1).

PW4, the sole eyewitness, testified that on the day of the incident, he was with both the deceased and the Appellant trying to catch a vehicle. When they missed it, an argument ensued between the deceased and the Appellant. The Appellant invited the deceased to a duel, which the deceased rejected. The Appellant then “boxed” the deceased, after which the deceased turned and left the scene. The Appellant followed him, got a wood, and hit the deceased on the head twice, causing him to fall down.

The Appellant’s version of events claimed that the deceased had slapped and beaten him, causing him to fall unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, the Appellant took a wood and beat the deceased, who then fell down. The Appellant was subsequently apprehended and handed over to the police.

HELD

1.The appeal was dismissed.

2.The judgment of the lower Court delivered on November 19, 2020, which affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant to death by hanging by the trial High Court of Kebbi State, was affirmed.

3.The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had proven the essential elements required to establish the guilt of the Appellant in this case.

4.The Court agreed with the two lower Courts that it was the injuries inflicted on the deceased by the Appellant that were responsible for his death.

5.The Court held that the defense of provocation would not avail the Appellant as there was sufficient time between the alleged provocation and the fatal blow, which was delivered in a second distinct episode.

ISSUES

1.Whether the Lower Court was right to have affirmed the judgment of the trial Court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, HOMICIDE BURDEN OF PROOF – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN MURDER TRIAL:

“ln a murder trial such as the present case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The essential elements that must be established are well-articulated in numerous judicial authorities, including OKEREKE V. STATE (2016) LPELR – 26059 (SC), KALA V. STATE (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1085) 125.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

MODES OF PROOF – METHODS OF PROVING ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN MURDER CASES

To prove these essential elements, the prosecution may rely on the following; 1. A confessional statement by the accused provided it has been duly tested, proven to be unequivocal, and admitted into evidence, 2. Circumstantial evidence, which must be complete, cogent, and unequivocal, leading to the irresistible conclusion that the accused committed the offence, 3. Direct evidence from eyewitnesses who actually saw the accused commit the offence. See the cases of OKEREKE V. THE STATE (2016) LPELR -40012 (SC), CHUKWUNYERE V. THE STATE (2017) LPELR -43725 (SC), AND FAMAKINWA V. THE STATE (2016) LPELR -40104 (SC).” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE – NECESSITY OF MEDICAL REPORT IN PROVING CAUSE OF DEATH

“While the absence of a medical report may raise questions as to the cause of death of the deceased person, it is well established in law that a medical report, though desirable, is not an absolute requirement for determining the cause of death in a murder case where there are other compelling evidence from which the cause of death can be reasonably inferred. In such a case, a medical report is not indispensable.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

CAUSATION – ESTABLISHING CAUSATION IN HOMICIDE CASES:

“As rightly pointed out by both the trial Court and the Court below, it was the injury inflicted on the deceased by the Appellant that started the chain of action which the deceased never recovered from, and in cases of murder, it is important to establish whether the death of the deceased was caused by injuries he sustained through the act of the accused. See R V. EFFANG (1969) 1 ALL NLR 339 CONSIDERED IN UYO BENDEL STATE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT 17) 418. The cause of death of the deceased in the instant case is apparent from the evidence on the record and therefore not in doubt.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

PROVOCATION – ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION:

“Let me borrow the words of my learned brother, Coker JSC (of blessed memory), who succinctly restated the basis of the defence of provocation in AKANG V. THE STATE (1971) 1 ALL NLR 47 at P. 49, as follows: ‘Provocation which reduces what would otherwise amount to murder to manslaughter is a legal concept made up of a number of elements which must co-exist. It is of paramount importance in the consideration of this concept that the act held out as a natural and justifiable action of the provoked person be done not in self-revenge but in ventilation of a natural, sudden and contemporaneous feeling of anger caused by the circumstances of the occasion.'” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

PROVOCATION – TIME ELEMENT IN DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION:

From the facts presented by the prosecution, it is evident that two distinct episodes took place between the Appellant and the deceased. The fatal blow was inflicted by the Appellant only during the second episode, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The record before this Court reveals that after the first episode, the Appellant had sufficient time to reflect and act with deliberation, and by the time the second episode occurred, the Appellant was no longer acting in the heat of passion, even though the initial incident may have provoked him.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

PROOF OF ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS – PROSECUTION’S BURDEN IN HOMICIDE CASES:

“Flowing from above, therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has proved the essential elements required to establish the guilt of the Appellant in respect of this case. Both the trial Court and the Court below in their concurrent findings were satisfied that it was the injuries inflicted on the deceased by the Appellant that were responsible for his death. I am in complete agreement with the two Courts below on this issue.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – APPELLATE COURT’S ATTITUDE TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT:

“The principle of the attitude of this Court to concurrent findings of facts by the two lower Courts is now perfectly settled. The only defence raised before trial Courts was that of provocation, and it was rightly rejected by both Courts. It is that this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of facts by both trial Court and the Court below, unless it is shown that it is in the interest of Justice to do so. It will, however, interfere with such findings where they are shown to be patently erroneous, perverse or such that no reasonable tribunal could make so that a miscarriage of justice will result if they are allowed to stand.” – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY – WEIGHT OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IN HOMICIDE CASES:

“The PW4 was the only eyewitness to the events that led to the death of the deceased. According to him, on the day of the incident, he was with the deceased and the Appellant, trying to catch a vehicle to some place, but when the vehicle came out, they missed it as none was able to get on it. When they returned to where they were, an argument ensued between the deceased and the Appellant, leading the Appellant to invite the deceased to a duel. This invitation was rejected by the deceased on the ground that he was not the Appellant’s mate. Obviously piqued by the attitude of the deceased in turning down his invitation, the Appellant ‘boxed’ the deceased, which made PW4 request the Appellant to stop. At this juncture, the deceased turned and left the scene, the accused followed him, got a wood and hit the deceased, ‘when he was backing him on the head when he was about to fall down he (Appellant) hit him again on the head’.” – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WEIGHT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IN HOMICIDE CASES:

“ln the present appeal, it is not in dispute that the deceased died. The Appellant also admits to hitting the deceased twice on the head and neck with a piece of wood. This account was in addition corroborated by the evidence of PW4, the sole eyewitness to the incident, and is further supported by Exhibit B-B1, the Appellant’s extra-judicial statement to the police.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

SELF-DEFENSE – CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE IN HOMICIDE CASES:

“In his testimony, the Appellant stated that on the day of the incident, he met the PW4 on the road after he missed the vehicle. Both of them were on their way home when they met Ibrahim (deceased) who asked the PW4 where the vehicle was and upon the PW4 replying that it had gone, the deceased passed the question to the Appellant which action led to a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased. According to the Appellant, during the quarrel, the deceased then slapped the Appellant, the Appellant wanted to retaliate but the deceased was stronger and therefore dodged. The deceased then beat the Appellant on the ear and he fell down and became unconscious. Obviously, when the Appellant regained consciousness, he was in, ‘front of a shop’ I remove it and beat him he fell down, people rushed to the scene they were watching up and me too’.” – Per ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.S.C.

PROVOCATION – CASE AUTHORITIES ON DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION:

“On the defence of provocation raised by the Appellant, this Court has in several decisions dealt with such issue and clearly spell out what the ingredients the accused must establish for the defence to avail him and mitigate his punishment. See the cases of OLADIRAN V. STATE (1986) LPELR – 2550 (SC), NWEDE V. STATE (1985) LPELR -2118 (SC), STEPHEN V. STATE (1986) LPELR-3117 (SC), IDEMUDIA V. STATE (1999) LPELR -1418 (SC).” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE – CASE AUTHORITIES ON NECESSITY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE:

“See ONITILO V. THE STATE (2017) LPELR -42576 (SC), BILLE V. THE STATE (2016) LPELR -40832 (SC), ALARAPE & ORS. V. THE STATE (2001) 5 NWLR (PT. 705) 79, AND AIGUOREGIAN V. THE STATE (2004) 3 NWLR (PT. 860) 367.” – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

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

2.Penal Code

3.Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT