WADATA ISAH v. THE STATE

CORAM

PARTIES

WADATA ISAH

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, wherein the lower Court unanimously affirmed the judgement of the trial Court convicting the Appellant of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code. On 29th October 2008, the Appellant stabbed one Hamidu Mohammed a Police Constable with a knife at the back of his neck which resulted in the death of his victim. He was arrested, investigated, charged to Court, tried and convicted for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code. On 22nd May 2010, the Appellant was found guilty of the offence for which he was charged and was consequently convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with his conviction, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal Sokoto Division through a Notice of Appeal. The appeal was heard and the Court below delivered its judgement and unanimously dismissed the appeal while affirming the conviction and death sentence of the trial Court. Further dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Appellant has lodged the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed.

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have upheld the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for culpable homicide under Section 221 of the Penal Code?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – DUTY OF COURT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE “The totality of the evidence presented in this case leaves this Court with little or no room to arrive at a different conclusion with the trial and lower Court. This stems from the fact that the duty of Court, is to interpret the statute in accordance with the intention of the law makers. In Ugwu Vs Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (P1.1048) 367 at 498 this Court stated thus: ‘A statute, it is always said, is “the will of the legislature” and any document which is presented to it as a statute is an authentic expression of the legislative will. The function of the Court is to interpret that document according to the intent of those who made it. Thus, the Court declares the intention of the legislature.’”

COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JUSTICE

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE – ATTITUDE OF COURT TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE “Courts generally have deliberately shifted away from narrow technical approach to justice which characterized some earlier decisions to now pursue the course of substantial justice. See Makeri Smelting Co. Ltd. Vs Access Bank (Nig.) Plc (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.766) 447 at 476-477. The attitude of the Court has since changed against deciding cases on mere technicalities. The attitude of the Courts now is that cases should always be decided, wherever possible on merit. Blunders must take place from time to time, and it is unjust to hold that because a blunder has been committed, the party blundering is to incur the penalty of not having the dispute between him and his adversary determined upon the merits. See also Ajakaiye Vs Idehai (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt.364) 504, Artraind Ltd Vs NBCI (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.483) 754, Dakat Vs. Dashe (1997) 12 NWLR (pt.531) 46, Benson Vs. Nigeria Agip Co. Ltd (1982) 6 S.C 1.”

COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS – INSTANCES WHEN THE SUPREME COURT WILL DISTURB THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS “The law is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of facts made by the trial Court and the Court of Appeal unless such findings are perverse; or are not supported by the evidence; or are reached as a result of a wrong approach to the evidence; or as a result of a wrong application of evidence; or as a result of a wrong application of any principle of substantive law or procedure. See Arabambi Vs Advance Beverages Ind. Ltd. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt.959) 1 per Onnoghen, J.S.C (Pt.46), C-E. See also Ochiba Vs State 2011 12 SC (Pt.IV) p.79″ per Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C. (pp.51-52, paras. F-B). See also Cameroon Airlines Vs Otutuizu 2011 12 SC (Pt.III) P.200; Olowu Vs Nig. Navy 2011 12 SC (Pt. II) page 1; Arowolo Vs Olowookere & 2 Ors. 2011 11-12 SC (Pt. II) P.98.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTCAN GROUND A CONVICTION Moreover, by virtue of the provisions of Sections 28 of the Evidence Act, confessional statement is tenable and admissible. The section describes a confessional statement thus: “A confession is an admission made at any time by a person, charged with a crime tending to show or suggest the inference that he committed the crime.” Confessional statement is the best evidence to ground conviction and, as held in a number of cases, it can be relied upon solely where voluntary. The criminal guilt of an accused person could be established by confessional statement, circumstantial evidence and evidence of an eye witness. A confessional statement does not become inadmissible even if the accused person denied having made it. This has been the settled position in our jurisprudence of criminal justice. See for example Patrick Ikemson & 2 Ors Vs The State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt.110) 455 at 476 para. D; Joseph Idowu Vs The State (2000) 7 SC 50 at 62; (2000) 12 NWLR (pt.680), at 48, Nkwuda Edamine Vs The State (1996) 3 NWLR (pt.43S) 530 at 537 paras. D-E; Samuel Theophilus Vs The State (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt.423) page 139 at 155 paras. A-B; and Awopeju Vs The State (2002)3 MJSC 141 at 151.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – NATURE OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT THAT CAN GROUND A CONVICTION “This Court, per the Learned Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was; now CJN) in Peter Iliya Azabada Vs The State (2014) All FWLR (Pt.751) 1620, para. B has made it abundantly clear in the following words: ‘The confessional statement of an accused, where it is direct, positive and unequivocal as to the commission of the crime charged, is the best evidence and can be relied upon solely for conviction of the accused person. An accused person can be convicted on his confessional statement alone, where the confession is constant with other ascertained facts which have been proved.’

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONFESSION – CONSEQUENCE OF CONFESSION IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE “Confession in criminal procedure is the strongest evidence of guilt on the art of an accused person. It is stronger than evidence of an eye witness because the evidence comes from the horse’s mouth who is the accused person. There is no better evidence and there is no further proof. Therefore where an accused person confesses to a crime in the absence of an eye witness to the killing, he can be convicted on his confession alone once the confession is positive, direct and properly proved. In other words, a free and voluntary confession of guilt, direct and positive and if duly made and satisfactorily proved, is sufficient without corroborative evidence so long as the Court is satisfied as to the truth of the confession.”

COURT, APPEAL, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS – CONSEQUENCES OF AN APPELLANT’S FAILURE TO CONVINCE THE SUPREME COURT ON THE NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF A TRIAL COURT “The evidence of medical evidence is further strengthened by the confessional statement of the Appellant. In view of the foregoing, it is our considered view that the judgment of the trial Court cannot, be faulted at all and the lower Court was right in affirming and endorsing it. The Appellant has failed to convince us that this is a situation in which this Court should interfere. See also Mini Lodge Ltd Vs Ngei (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt.1173) 254 per Musdapher, J.S.C (as he then was) (P.33, paras. B-D)”.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CULPABLE HOMICIDE – NATURE OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH “The direct evidence required to prove the cause of death must be such as would connect the death of the deceased person with the act of the accused. This may include evidence of medical officer who examined or performed post-mortem examination on the deceased or an eye witness who saw when the accused inflicted injuries to the diseased. See Oguntolu Vs The State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt.423) 503.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CULPABLE HOMICIDE – REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROOF OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE “Before the Court can convict under Section 221 of the Penal Code the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this is achieved when the Court is satisfied that: (a) the death of a human being has occurred. (b) the death of the deceased was caused by the accused/appellant. (c) the act was done with the intention of causing death or that the accused knew or had reason to know that death will be the probable and not only the likely consequence of his act. See Durwode V State (2000) 15 NWLR (PT.691) P. 467 Shande V State (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt.939) P.301.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – WHEN IS A CHARGE HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? “Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof of a mathematical certainty. It also does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. A charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt when the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of evidence adduced is compelling and reliable to establish the guilt of the accused person. There must be a high degree of probability that the accused person committed the offence. The doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard must also be of a reasonable man. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not achieved by the prosecution calling several witnesses to testify. The Court is only interested in the testimony of a quality witness, so long as the charge is not one that needs corroboration. See Egwumi V State (2013) 2SC (PT .III) P.119.”

LAW OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – NATURE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE “Documentary evidence in this case exhibit D serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony. See Kimdey & Ors v M.G. Gongola State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) p. 473. Omoregbe v. Lawani (1980) 3 4 SC p. 117”.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS – ON WHOM LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS “Here and now before us at this point it needs reiteration that proof in criminal trial is attained against the background of the burden of proof enshrined in Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which prescribes that if the commission of a crime by a party to any proceedings is directly in issue in any proceeding, civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is therefore no imposition of a duty on the accused to purge himself of guilt rather what is required is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of reasonable doubt. It is in line with that legal principle that Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides as follows: ‘Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty provided that nothing in this Section shall invalidate any law by reason only that the law imposes upon any such person the burden of proving particular facts.’ The Courts have interpreting Section 36 (5) CFRN, have held that the section has squarely situated the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person on the prosecution.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CULPABLE HOMICIDE – INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH IN PROVING THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE “Therefore to prove the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code as in the instant case the prosecution must lead credible evidence to establish the following ingredients: 1. The death of a human being actually took place; 2. That such death of the deceased resulted from the act of the accused person; 3. The act or omission which caused the death of the deceased was done with the intention of causing death or that the accused knew or had reason to know that death will be the probable and not only the likely consequence of his act. I place reliance on Bello V State (2007) 10 NWLR (PT.1043) 564; Oladele V Nigeria Army (2004) 6 NWLR (PT. 868) 166, Akpan V The State (2007) 2 NWLR (PT.2003) 18 NWLR (PT.1019) 50; Ubani V The State (2003) 18 NWLR (PT.851) 24, Bakare V The State (1987) 1 NWLR (PT.52) 579.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF ACCUSED PERSON “Going through the totality of evidence at the trial of the appellant, the prosecution definitely proved all the ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide and the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The death of the deceased, Police Constable Hamidu Mohammed has been proved and that it was as a result of the act of the appellant through the evidence of PW5, an eye-witness. The situation is buttressed by the medical evidence, tendered as EXHIBIT D, the medical report which showed that the death of the deceased came directly from the act of the appellant by the act of stabbing of the deceased with a knife at the back of his neck. Again in the same basket is the confessional statement of the accused EXHIBIT C and C1 respectively, in which the appellant admitted the act of stabbing, The statement being true, positive, direct and voluntarily made is the best evidence because it is the admission of guilt directly from the actor’s mouth and sufficient of itself alone to establish the guilt of the accused. I rely on Jafiya Kopa V The State (1971) ALL NLR 50; Peter V State (1997) 12 NWLR ( 531) 1 at 22.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

INTENTIONAL ACT – INSTANCE WHEN A COURT WILL HOLD THAT THE ACCUSED INTENDED THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTION “In respect of the last ingredient of the accused, clearly the appellant knew that death of the deceased will not only be the likely but in fact the probable consequence of his act or that he did not care whether death of the deceased will result from his act. See Durwode V State (2000) 15 NWLR (PT. 691) 467, 487-488.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES – NATURE OF CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES THAT CAN AFFECT A PROSECUTION’S CASE “From available record, that stance of the appellant cannot stand as any contradictions and inconsistencies that exist are minor, peripheral and cannot materially affect the case of the prosecution. See Esangbedo V State (1959) 4 NWLR (PT.113) 57 at 83.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHOM LIES THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON “The burden always is on the prosecution to prove the accused guilty, and the ingredients are trite and well established.”

COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

FINDINGS OF FACT – ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO FINDINGS OF FACT “…findings of facts are matters within the province of a trial Court, and there is not much this Court can do when an Appeal turns on the issue of credibility – see Sugh V. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 77) 475 SC.”

COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS – INSTANCE WHEN THE SUPREME COURT CAN DISTURB THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS OF LOWER COURTS “What is more, where there is sufficient evidence to support concurrent findings of fact by two lower Courts, such findings will not be disturbed unless there is significant error that is apparent on the Record – Ogoala V. State (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 175) 506.”

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

INTENTION TO KILL – WHETHER THE INTENTION TO KILL OR CAUSE GRIEVOUS BODY HARM CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE NATURE OF WEAPON USED BY THE ACCUSED PERSON “It is also settled that the intention to kill or cause grievous harm can be inferred from the nature of the weapon he used; and that “a man who stabs another on the neck region with a bottle is deemed to have intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm- see Owhoruke V. C.O.P. (2015) 15 NWLR (PT. 1483) 557 SC.”