CORAM
ABDU ABOKI (PJ)
HON. JUSTICE JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI
PARTIES
USMAN MOHAMMED APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to death for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221(b) of the Penal Code at the High Court of Adamawa State. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution is the cautionary statement of the Appellant which he made in Hausa language but was recorded by PW1 in English language. The Appellant who was arrested alongside others denied knowledge of the offence charged with but claimed that those who were arrested with him were released except him since he has no relation. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant has appealed to this court contending that the Respondent failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death against the Appellant.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
“The Appellant respectfully submits that the sole issue arising for determination by this Honorable Court is whether the Trial Court was correct when it held that the Respondent proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death? (Distilled from Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal.)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF – WHETHER THE PROSECUTION IS RELIEVED OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF WHERE AN ACCUSED PERSON ADMITS COMMITTING THE OFFENCE
“In a criminal trial the burden of proof, throughout, lies upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused and the burden never shifts. Even where the accused person in his statement to the police admitted committing the offence, the prosecution is not relieved of the burden so that a wrong person will not be convicted for an offence he never committed. See People of Lagos State vs. Umaru (2014) 3 SCNJ 114 at 137 and Igabele vs. The State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 100.
GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – WAYS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“The onus is on the prosecution to prove a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt. See Igabele vs. The State (supra). “
“The guilt of an accused person can be proved by:
The confessional statement of the accused person; or
By circumstantial evidence; or
Evidence of eye witness of the crime. See Igabele vs. The State (supra).”
OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE – INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH THAT A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE
“The accused person was tried and convicted for culpable homicide contrary to Section 221(b) of the Penal Code. The ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death are:
That the death of a human being took place;
That such death was caused by the accused person;
That the act of the accused that caused the death was done with the intention of causing the death; or that the accused knew that death would be the probable consequence of his act.
All the ingredients must be proved or co-exist before a conviction could be secured. Failure to establish any of the ingredients would result in an acquittal. See Adava vs. The State (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 152 at 167 and the decisions of this Court in Akpan vs. The State (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1019) 500 and Uwagboe vs. The State (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 606.”
STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – HOW TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“Statements should wherever practicable be recorded by the police in the language in which they are made. See the decision of the Supreme Court in Olanipekun vs. The State (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1528) 100 at 118. In Jimoh vs. The State (2014) 3 SCNJ at 27 the police recorder of the statement recorded the statement in English language as the maker of the statement made the statement in Yoruba language. Only the statement recorded in English was tendered in evidence. There was no Yoruba recording of the statement. The Supreme Court did not fault the procedure. The important thing is that the statement was tendered through the interpreter/recorder.”
STATEMENT OF AN INTERPRETER – CONDITION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A STATEMENT BY AN INTERPRETER
“Where an interpreter has been used in the recording of a statement, the statement is inadmissible unless the person who interpreted it is called as a witness as well as the person who wrote it down. See Olalekan vs The State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 293.
It is clear from Jimoh vs. The State (supra) and Olanipekun vs. The State (supra) that the police officer who recorded the statement was not wrong in doing so in English language. As he was also the interpreter, the statement Exhibit A – A1 was rightly admitted in evidence.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-DUTY OF COURT WHEN AN ACCUSED PERSON RETRACTS HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“In law the Appellant can be convicted on Exhibit A – A1. However, when an accused person confesses to a crime in his extra judicial statement but in Court retracts from his confession, the well-known practice is that before such an accused person is convicted on the said confessional statement the Court looks for some evidence outside the confession which would make the confession probable.”
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN CONVICTING AN ACCUSED PERSON ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“Since 1913 when R v Sykes was decided, the Courts have adopted the practice recommended in the case of subjecting a confessional statement to some careful examination before relying on it as a basis for conviction. The factors to be considered are:
Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true?
Is it corroborated?
Are the relevant statements made in it true, as far as they can be tested?
Was the accused person one who had the opportunity of committing the offence?
Is the confession possible?
Is it consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved?
See R v Sykes (1913) 8 C.A.R 233 and F.R.N.V Barminas (2017) 177 at 214 – 215.”
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT-DUTY OF COURT WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO TEST AN ALLEGED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“It is clear from the foregoing that there was no other evidence before the Court below against which it would have tested the alleged confessional statement. See Bassey vs. State (2012) 4 SCNJ 141 at 155 – 156 and F.R.N vs. Barminas (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 177 at 214 – 215.”
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Penal Code|