CORAM

---

Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu ,Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ebiowei Tobi, Justice of the Court of Appeal

A.R. Mohammed, Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

UMARU GARBA

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, HOMICIDE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was charged with culpable homicide under Section 221(b) of the Penal Code for allegedly inflicting several cuts with a cutlass on one Umaru Jika on April 11, 2018, leading to his death. The prosecution alleged the deceased, who planned to migrate to Borgu, went missing while visiting relations. The Appellant was brought to the police station with injuries, claiming he was attacked. The deceased’s body was later found in the bush. The trial court discharged the Appellant on the conspiracy count but convicted him of culpable homicide and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Appellant appealed on the grounds that his conviction was wrongly based on his retracted confessional statements.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

2. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment was affirmed.

3. The court held that the confessional statements were properly relied upon and were corroborated by other evidence.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned trial Court erred in law when it convicted the Appellant based on Exhibit “C” – “C1” and Exhibits “D” – “D1” (the confessional statements).?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – STANDARD IN CRIMINAL CASES

---

“In all criminal cases, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and in the case of culpable homicide, the prosecution has a duty to prove all three ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt in the evidence of the prosecution must be resolved in favour of the accused person.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

PROOF OF GUILT – METHODS OF ESTABLISHING GUILT

---

“In discharging the burden of proving its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt, the law enjoins the prosecution to rely on any of the following: (a) Direct evidence of an eyewitness; (b) Circumstantial evidence, and/or (c) The confessional statement of the accused person.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – SUFFICIENCY FOR CONVICTION

---

“Where an extra-judicial confession has been proved to have been made voluntarily and it is positive and unequivocal and amounts to an admission of guilt, such confession will suffice to ground a finding of guilt regardless of whether the maker resiled therefrom or retracted it altogether at the trial.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

RETRACTED CONFESSION – CORROBORATION REQUIREMENT

---

“A confessional statement which is voluntary, properly proved, direct and unequivocal is sufficient to sustain a conviction even where it is subsequently retracted at the trial. However as a matter of practice, Court looks for some other evidence outside a confessional statement no matter how slight to establish the truth of the matters admitted therein.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

CONTRADICTION VS DISCREPANCY – DISTINCTION IN EVIDENCE

---

“A piece of evidence contradicts another when it affirms the opposite of what the other evidence has stated, not when there is just a minor discrepancy between them. Thus, two pieces of evidence contradict one another when they are by themselves inconsistent.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

MATERIAL CONTRADICTION – TEST OF RELEVANCE

---

“Contradictions which do not affect the substance of the issue to be decided are irrelevant. The contradiction must be shown to amount to a substantial disparagement of the witnesses concerned.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT OF LACK OF OBJECTION

---

“There was no objection to the admissibility of the above statement and similar other statement by the Appellant at the State Police Headquarters.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

CORROBORATION – NATURE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

---

“Corroborative evidence merely supports and/or confirms what the Appellant earlier stated in his extra-judicial statements. It is therefore not restricted only to the evidence of a witness pointing to the Appellant as the person who committed the offence.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – TEST FOR RELIANCE

---

“The six way test laid down in R. V. SKYKES (1913) Cr. APO R. 233, requires the Court to satisfy itself of the following before it can rely on a confessional statement to convict an accused person.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

EXTRA-JUDICIAL STATEMENT – EFFECT OF VOLUNTARINESS

---

“Where the extra-judicial statement of an accused person has been proved to be an admission of guilt, it is safe to convict on it even if there is no corroboration of it.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EVIDENTIARY VALUE

---

“A positive and unequivocal narration of the event that took place on the faithful day straight from the horse’s mouth.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF TOTALITY

---

“The totality of the evidence of the prosecution clearly shows that the Appellant not only had the opportunity of committing the offence but also made the confessional statements.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

DISCREPANCY IN EVIDENCE – EFFECT ON SUBSTANCE

---

“Discrepancy may occur when a piece of evidence stops short of or contains a little more than what the other piece of evidence says or contains some minor difference in details.” – Per Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Penal Code

2. Evidence Act, 2011

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

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT