CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

THE STATE APPELLANTS

---

ABDU MUSA RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent was among five persons arraigned before the High Court of Kastina State, on a two count charge of conspiracy to commit culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 22(1) of the Penal Code, armed robbery contrary to Section 2(1) and punishable under Section 2(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. It was alleged that the Appellant and his co-accused conspired to kill and did kill one Usman DAN-Iyau(Maigadi) by beating him and slaughtering him with a knife at Mazado Timber Factory along Yahaya Madawaki Way, Kastina. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to each counts. The prosecution called 7 witnesses and tendered several exhibits, including the extra judicial statements of the accused persons, photographs of the corpse of the deceased and a medical report as to the cause of death while the accused persons testified in their own defence. The trial court found the accused persons guilty on each count and sentenced them to death by hanging on the first count while on the second count they were sentenced to life imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the trial court judgment, they filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal. The lower Court held that the confessional statement is inconsistent with the medical report which it was suppose to corroborate, hence it set aside the decision of the trial court and discharged and acquitted the accused persons. The Appellant has filed the instant appeal urging this court to allow the appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the lower court was right when is set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant having regard to the evidence on record.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

OFFENCE OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY – INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY

---

“The ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death, have been set out earlier in this judgment. For the offence of attempted robbery, Section 2(1) and (2) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act provides as follows:

“2(1). Any person who, with intent to steal anything, assaults any other person and at or immediately after the time of such assault, uses or threatens to use actual violence to any other person or any property, in order to obtain the thing intended to be stolen shall, upon conviction under this Act, be sentences to imprisonment for not less than fourteen years but not more than twenty years.

(2) If
(b) at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the assault, the offender wounds or uses any other personal violence to any person, the offender shall, upon conviction under this Act, be sentenced to imprisonment for life.”-

 

---

CONFESSION – DEFINITION OF CONFESSION

---

“Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011, defines “a confession” as “an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the interference that he committed the crime.”

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – APPROPRIATE TIME TO OBJECT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“The law is that the proper time to object to the admissibility of a confessional statement is at the stage when it is sought to be tendered and not after it has been admitted in evidence. See: Godsgift Vs The State (2016) LPELR -40540 (SC) @ 31 B-C; Olalekan Vs the State (2002) 2 SCN 3 104: Muha
mmad Vs The State (2017) LPELR – 42098 (SC) @ 17-18 C-B”.

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – INSTANCES WHERE A COURT WILL RELY ON A RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT TO GROUND A CONVICTION

---

“Where a confessional statement is direct, positive and admits all or some of the elements of the offence charged, and the court is satisfied that it was voluntarily made, the court can rely on it to ground a conviction even though retracted at the trial. See: Igbinovia Vs The State (1981) LPELR – 1446 (SC)@ 17 B-D: (1981) 2 SC 5; Yesufu Vs The State (1976) 6 SC 163; Adebayo Vs The State (2014) LPELR – 22988 (SC) @ 55-56 F-A”.

---

RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – FACTORS THAT THE COURT WILL CONSIDER BEFORE RELYING ON A RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT TO GROUND A CONVICTION

---

“Before relying on a retracted confessional statement to convict an accused person, the factors the court would consider are as follows:
1.Whether there is anything outside the confession which shows that it may be true;

2.Whether the confessional statement is in fact corroborated;

3.Whether the relevant statements of fact made in it are most likely true as far as they can be tested;

4.Whether the accused had the opportunity of committing the offence;

5.Whether the confession is possible; and

6. Whether the alleged confession is consistent with other facts that have been ascertained and established.

See: R Vs Sykes (1913) 8 Cr.App. Report 233; Ubierho Vs The State (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt. 819) 644 @ 655; Nwachukwu Vs The State (supra); Fabiyi Vs The State (2015) LPELR -24834 (SC) @ 33-34 E-D’.

 

---

EXIHIBIT – STATUS OF AN EXHIBIT TENDERED AND MARKED REJECTED

---

“With due respect to their Lordships, once an exhibit has been tendered and marked rejected, it ceases to form part of the material for consideration in the case and is of no evidential value. See: Agboola Vs The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1366) 619: Nigerian Ports Plc. Vs Beecham Pharmaceutical PTE Ltd. & Anor (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 454”.

---

MEDICAL REPORT – WHETHER A MEDICAL REPORT CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TESTIMONY BY THE MEDICAL DOCTOR

---

“First of all, it must be stated, that it is not in every case that the medical doctor must be called to testify. By virtue of Section 55(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the report of the medical officer who performed the autopsy may be taken as sufficient evidence of its contents. See: Edoho Vs The State (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1214) 651: Istekwe Vs The State (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 617) 43; Popoola Vs The State (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 96”.

---

WITNESSES – WHETHER THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES IS MATERIAL IN DISCHARGING THE BURDEN OF PROVING A CASE

---

“It is for the prosecution to determine the number of witnesses to call in order to discharge the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that what is material is not the quantity of witnesses but the quality of the evidence adduced. See: Akalezi Vs The State (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt. 273) 1; Smart Vs The State (2016) LPFIR -40728 (SC): Nwaturocha Vs The State (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1242) 170”.

---

PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIAL

---

“The onus on the prosecution is to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt but not beyond the shadow of a doubt. See: Galadima Vs The State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 60: Stephen Vs The State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 153: Nwaturocha (2011) 2-3 SC (Pt. 1) 11: Igabele Vs The State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 100”.

---

OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE – ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE

---

1.The death of a human being actually occurred;

2.That the death was caused by the accused;

3.The accused person’s act which resulted in the death of the human being was done with the intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm; and

4.That the accused knew that death would be a probable but not just likely consequence of his act.

See Bright v State (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt.1302) 297 at 302”.

 

---

PROOF – WAYS OF PROVING THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE

---

“In the quest to get the proof of the offence effected three recognised and different ways are known and each can be used to get the assignment carried out and they are as follows: –

a. By direct evidence;

b. By circumstantial evidence; and

c. By confessional statement.

See Emeka v State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.734) 666 at 683”.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS SOLELY SUFFICIENT IN GROUNDING A CONVICTION

---

“There is no gainsaying that a confessional statement is properly regarded as the strongest evidence of guilt of an accused person charged with the offence and so when as in this instance, the confession has been obtained free and positive, it is enough to secure a conviction by the prosecution. I rely on Ogudo v State (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1278) 1 at 45; Maigari v State (2013) 7 NWLR (PL 1384) 425; Igri v State (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt.1327) 522 at 547; State v Isah (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt.1372) 613.

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT -WHETHER A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BECOMES INADMISSIBLE WHERE AN ACCUSED PERSON DENIES MAKING SAME

---

“It is to be noted that a confessional statement does not become inadmissible merely because the accused denied making it even though when such a retraction takes place the court is cautioned to seek evidence no matter how sight outside that confessional statement to show that the confession is probable. I shall cite a few decided cases of this court on these principles. See Olalekan v State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.746) 794 at 811.

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE SATISFIED BEFORE A COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON ON HIS UNCORROBORATED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“A reiteration of the principle of law already over flogged that a court can convict an accused on his uncorroborated confessional statement so long as certain conditions are satisfied which are thus: –

a)There is something outside the confession which shows that it may be true;

b)The statement contained therein are likely to be true;

c)The accused has the opportunity to have committed the offence; and

d) The facts stated by the accused are consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and established at the trial”.

 

---

PROOF OF CRIME – DUTY ON THE PROSECUTION IN PROVING ITS CASE

---

“It is now well settled that the prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as provided for by Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended”.

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Evidence Act 2011 (as amended)

2. Penal Code Law of Katsina State

3. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. 398 of LFN, 1999.

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT