CASE IDENTIFICATION
EDITORIAL SUMMARY
Editorial — not part of the judgment as delivered
Facts of the Case
The prosecution’s case at the trial Court was that on 29 September 2016 in Sabon Fegi Ward, Damaturu, Yobe State, the deceased accused the appellant of theft of a phone and refused to retract the allegation even after the truth was uncovered that the phone was not stolen but was in the possession of a relation of the owner. As a result, the deceased and the appellant got into an argument, and the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife.
At the trial, the prosecution called six witnesses and tendered two exhibits. The appellant called one witness and also testified for himself. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to death by hanging. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. Being further dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
ISSUE 1:
Whether Respondent’s failure to disclose the place of commission of the offence, the trial Court’s conviction and sentence of the Appellant was proper in law.
ISSUE 2:
Whether having regards to the totality of the evidence led before the trial Court, the Court was right in holding that the required ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision / Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that Issue 1 was incompetent as it did not derive from the ground of appeal, and Issue 2 was incompetent as it invited the Supreme Court to reconsider the totality of evidence in an appeal against concurrent findings of fact without alleging perversity. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi / Principles
APPELLATE PRACTICE — Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — Instances Where the Supreme Court Will Not Interfere with Concurrent Findings of Fact Made by Lower Courts “Having gone through the record of appeal, the arguments of both Counsel and the totality of the evidence adduced by the respondent, I am of the opinion that the two (2) lower Courts were right to have found the Appellant guilty as charged for the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death and there was absolutely nothing perverse in the judgment and no miscarriage of justice has occurred that would warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the two (2) lower Courts.” Per Ogunwumiju, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at pp. 26–27; Paras D–A.
APPELLATE PRACTICE — Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact — Whether the Supreme Court Can Interfere with Concurrent Finding of Facts of Lower Courts “The issue as couched is not valid for this Court’s consideration. This is a general ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal on the totality of the evidence. It invites this Court to consider the totality of the evidence elicited at the trial and determine if the Court of Appeal correctly held that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court as the second appellate Court lacks the jurisdiction to engage in such a determination in an appeal against concurrent findings on facts. The scope of its power in such an appeal is very narrow as it is limited to determining complaints that the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or violate the provision of a law causing injustice. There is no ground of this appeal that has complained that any concurrent findings of fact is perverse or is in breach of some law.” Per Agim, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at pp. 11–12; Paras C–A.
APPELLATE PRACTICE — Appeal — Issue(s) for Determination — Whether Issue(s) for Determination Must Relate to the Grounds of Appeal Filed; Effect of Failure Thereof “An issue for determination that purports to derive from a ground of appeal must deal with the subject matter of the complaint in the ground of appeal. If it raises a question that deals with a subject matter different from the one in the said ground of appeal, then it is inconsistent with it and is therefore not derived from that ground. Such an issue is incompetent as it is not derived from a ground of appeal.” Per Agim, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at pp. 3–4; Paras D–A.
APPELLATE PRACTICE — Court — Supreme Court — Whether the Supreme Court Has the Jurisdiction to Hear Appeals Directly from the High Court “This Court can only determine complains against the decision of the Court of Appeal and not that of the trial High Court by virtue of Ss 233, 240 and 241 of the 1999 Constitution. … Once the Court of Appeal has determined an appeal to it against any part of the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal to the Supreme Court can only lie against the Court of Appeal decision concerning the judgment of the trial Court and the issues or questions raised for determination in the appeal should be in respect of the Court of Appeal decision and not that of the Trial High Court. Any question or issue concerning the correctness of the judgment of the trial High Court raised for the determination of this Court has the effect of an appeal from the judgment of the High Court to the Supreme Court. This is contrary to Ss 240, 241 and 233 of the 1999 Constitution. Such an issue or question is not competent or valid for this Court’s consideration.” Per Agim, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at pp. 2–3; Paras D–A.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — Offence of Culpable Homicide Punishable with Death — Ingredients That Must Be Proved to Establish the Offence of Culpable Homicide Punishable with Death; Ways of Proving It “In a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death, the essential ingredients which the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction are as follows: (a) That the deceased died (b) That the death of the deceased person resulted from the acts of the Defendant (c) That the Defendant caused the death of the deceased intentionally or with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence of his action. The prosecution must prove that the death of the deceased person resulted from the act of the Defendant by direct eye witness account, circumstantial evidence from which the guilt of the Defendant can be inferred or by free and voluntary confessional statement of guilt which is direct and positive.” Per Ogunwumiju, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at pp. 18–19; Paras D–A.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — Scene of the Crime — Meaning of Locus Criminis; Whether Same Ought to Be Proved “It is instructive to note that locus criminis in its literal interpretation simply means ‘a place where the crime was committed’. In a criminal trial, the locus criminis is a fact in issue and ought to be proved, along with other facts in issue, beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. This is in conformity with the presumption of innocence as enshrined in Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as altered).” Per Ogunwumiju, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at p. 17; Paras B–D.
EVIDENCE LAW — Burden of Proof/Onus of Proof — When Can the Burden of Proof on the Prosecution Be Said to Have Been Discharged “The burden of proving the guilt of a defendant for the offences he was charged with beyond reasonable doubt is discharged when the prosecution proves by evidence the ingredients or elements of the offences charged.” Per Ogunwumiju, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at p. 16; Paras D–E.
EVIDENCE LAW — Cause of Death — Circumstances Where Medical Evidence Would Be Dispensed with as to the Cause of Death “Medical Certificate as to the cause of death may be dispensed with where death occurred instantly or almost immediately from the voluntary act of the accused.” Per Ogunwumiju, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at p. 24; Paras C–E.
EVIDENCE LAW — Confessional Statement — Whether a Court Can Convict Solely on the Confessional Statement of an Accused Person “It is settled that where the confession of an accused is a direct and positive admission of guilt, it can be used solely to convict him.” Per Ogunwumiju, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at pp. 19–20; Paras E–B.
EVIDENCE LAW — Evidence of an Eye Witness — When Evidence of Eyewitness Will Be Considered the Best Form of Evidence “The evidence of an eyewitness is one of the best evidence available provided the eyewitness is telling the truth.” Per Ogunwumiju, JSC, in Bakari v. State (2024) NLC-123-421-2020(SC) at pp. 22–23; Paras E–A.
Orders of Court
Appeal dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 16 November 2018 in Appeal No. CA/J/304C/2017 affirming the judgment of the High Court of Yobe State in Criminal Case No. YBS/DT/HC/30C/2016 delivered on 13 March 2017 convicting and sentencing the appellant to death was further affirmed.
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the Appellant(s)
Sunday S. Obende, Esq. with him, K. M. Zontong, Esq.
Counsel for the Respondent(s)
Baba Dala Fika, Esq.
Amicus Curiae
None
JUDGMENTS / OPINIONS OF THE COURT
Authoritative judicial text as delivered
Lead / Majority Opinion
— (DELIVERED BY EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C. (DELIVERING THE LEADING JUDGMENT):)
This appeal No. SC/CR/421/2020 commenced on 10-12-2018 is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 16- 11-2018 in Appeal No. CA/J/304C/2017 dismissing the appeal to it and affirming the judgment of the High Court of Yobe State delivered on 13-3-2017 in Criminal Case No. YBS/DT/HC/30C/2016 convicting the appellant of culpable homicide punishable with death and sentenced him to death by hanging.
The parties herein have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows:- appellant’s brief and respondent’s brief, and appellant’s reply brief.
The appellant’s brief raised the following issues for determination –
1. “Whether Respondent’s failure to disclose the place of commission of the offence, the trial Court’s conviction and sentence of the Appellant was proper in law?- relates to Ground 2 of the Amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal.
2. Whether having regards to the totality of the evidence led before the trial Court, the Court was right in holding that the required ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide
1
punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code was proved beyond reasonable doubt?- relate to Ground one of the Amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal”.
The respondent’s brief adopted and argued the issues raised for determination in the appellant’s brief. This judgment is based on those issues.
Let me start with issue No. which asks –
1. “Whether Respondent’s failure to disclose the place of commission of the offence, the trial Court’s conviction and sentence of the Appellant was proper in law?- relates to Ground 2 of the Amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal.
The issue invites this Court to determine if the trial Court’s conviction and sentence of the appellant is proper when the respondent failed to disclose the place of the commission of the offence.
This Court can only determine complains against the decision of the Court of Appeal and not that of the trial High Court by virtue of Ss 233, 240 and 241 of the 1999 Constitution complains against the decision of a High Court got to the Court of Appeal. Once the Court of Appeal has determined an appeal to it against any part of the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal to the Supreme
2
Court can only lie against the Court of Appeal decision concerning the judgment of the trial Court and the issues or questions raised for determination in the appeal should be in respect of the Court of Appeal decision and not that of the Trial High Court. Any question or issue concerning the correctness of the judgment of the trial High Court raised for the determination of this Court has the effect of an appeal from the judgment of the High Court to the Supreme Court. This is contrary to Ss 240, 241 and 233 of the 1999 Constitution. Such an issue or question is not competent or valid for this Court’s consideration. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to determine such issues or questions.
The said issue No. 1 is obviously inconsistent with the ground 2 of this appeal from which it is stated to be derived. Ground 2 of this appeal complains thusly –
“The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law, when they held as follows:-
“Contrary to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, PW4 who was an eye witness gave cogent and credible evidence in line with the charge. The remaining witnesses i.e. PW1,
3
PW2, PW3 and PW5 narrated what they knew and did in connection with the case at hand. It is my humble view that there is no discrepancy between the location of the alleged crime (Locus Criminis) and the evidence led.” And thereby occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice.”
While ground 2 complains that the Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law when it held that there is no discrepancy between the location of the crime and the evidence led, issue No. 1 that purports to derive from it questions whether the trial Court’s conviction and sentence of the appellant was proper in law when the respondent failed to disclose the place of commission of the crime. An issue for determination that purports to derive from a ground of appeal must deal with the subject matter of the complaint in the ground of appeal. If it raises a question that deals with a subject matter different from the one in the said ground of appeal, then it is inconsistent with it and is therefore not derived from that ground. Such an issue is incompetent as it is not derived from a ground of appeal. As it is issue No. 1 is incompetent and not valid for consideration.
It is noteworthy
4
that the issue of the alleged failure of the prosecution to mention the place of the crime was not raised during trial. None of the grounds of appeal against the judgment of the trial Court to the Court of Appeal raised it. It was raised for the first time as issue No. 1 in the brief of the appellant in the Court of Appeal in the following terms -“Whether the prosecution could be said to have proved the charge the appellant beyond reasonable doubt having failed to mention the locus criminis of the alleged incident (Sabon, Fegi) as stated on the charge sheet”.
The issue was not derived from any of the grounds of that appeal. Inspite of the obvious incompetence of this issue, it was argued by both sides without challenge. The Court of Appeal decided the issue thusly –
“Appellant’s counsel had strenuously argued in Appellant’s brief of argument that the failure of the prosecution witnesses to mention the locus crimnis and time the offence was committed as reflected on the charge for which appellant was convicted is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Contrary to the argument of learned counsel for the evidence in line with the charge. The remaining
5
witnesses’ i.e PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 narrated what they know and did in connect with the case at hand. It is my humble view that there is no discrepancy between the location of the alleged crime (Locus Criminis), and the evidence led”.
Ground 2 of the amended notice of this appeal complains against this part of the decision of the Court of Appeal.
As I have decided herein, issue No. 1 in the appellant’s brief that purports to be derived from this ground is inconsistent with it and is therefore incompetent. As it is, no valid issue is raised for determination from ground 2 of this appeal. Therefore, the effect is that the ground is abandoned.
Since arguments in an appeal before this Court must be based on valid issues raised for determination from the grounds of the appeal, the arguments based on the invalid issue No. 1 are incompetent and not valid for consideration, as arguments in appeals in this Court cannot be based directly on the grounds of appeal.
In spite of the foregoing let me consider the merit of the argument that the decision of the Court of Appeal that the prosecution evidence on the scene of the crime supports the charge that
6
the offence was committed in Sabon Fegi Ward, Damaturu is wrong. Let me without shilly-shallying state that the Court of Appeal correctly held that the evidence led by the prosecution is consistent with the charge on the scene of the crime.
The charge against the appellant and on the basis upon which he was tried and convicted reads thusly –
“That you Mohammed Isah Bakari ‘M’ on or about 29th September, 2016 at about 1100hrs in Sabo Fegi Ward, Damaturu which is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did commit Culpable Homicide punishable with death in that you caused the death of one Abubakar Ibrahim ‘M’ by doing an act to wit stabbing him on his neck with a knife with the knowledge that death would be the probable consequences of your act and thereby committed and offence punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code”.
It is glaring from the testimony of PW4, a direct eye witness of the event, because he was present throughout the incident and tried to restrain the appellant’s attack on the deceased, that the scene of crime was in front of their house in Sabo Fegi, Damaturu, where all of them lived as neighbours. The exact text of his
7
testimony in examination in chief reads thusly –
“My name is Abubakar Saidu Ibrahim, I am 26 years old, I am a corper as of now. I live in Damaturu, Sand abo Fegi, I am a Muslim, I know the accused person, for we live in the same neighbourhood. On 29/9/2016 around 9:00 am when my elder brother, Kabiru called me asked for his phone because he left his room open when he entered the main house to great our mother. I told him that I did not see his phone, then we started asking people if anybody entered the house. When we went out we saw Bukar Ibrahim Yaga (deceased) and two of his friends coming to check on me because I was having a stomach ache that night before, and we asked them if they had seen anybody going out of our house, and they said they saw Mohammed Isah Bakari coming out of our house. We asked them if they know where he went to and they answer in the positive that he had accorded a keke Napeb. Myself and my elder brother Kabiru drew to G.S.M Village looking for him, but he was not there. We asked for his phone number from Abbairu for they live together in the same house with Mohammed (the accused) and he told me that he was around timber shed
8
along Maiduguri road. We met him there together with my elder brother, Kabiru. Then Kabiru asked the accused that he heard that he had just come out of their house and not went any problem between them, but the accused stated that he had not been to our house for the past 8 days. Myself, and the accused back. When we approached the house we saw Alhaji coming out of the house. My elder brother asked me to call Alhaji for he had just come out of the house. I call him and he confessed that it was my elder brother Adam who texted to him to return to the house immediately and give him the phone. So myself, Kabiru and the accused and Alhaji. My brother Kabiru asked the accused to be patient please for he does not know that it was not him that picked the phone and he gave him some money to transport himself back to the timber shed where we met him and discussed. After about 20 minutes I was standing in front of my house when the accused and Bukar Ibrahim Yaga, the deceased came to me and the accused asked the deceased when did he see him coming out of the house. I asked the accused to let thing pass and forget about the whole issue. The deceased was smiling while the
9
accused was shouting at him. I was try calm the accused down but he refused to listen to me. Before I know it, the accused removed a knife from his trouser and chased the deceased while I pushed the accused away. Then he later ran to the deceased, kicked him with his leg and stabbed the deceased with the knife under the ear. When he kick the deceased with his leg, the deceased beat forward and the accused stabbed him with knife. The deceased started bleeding immediately. I called my elder brother Kabiru and we put the deceased in his car and rushed him to the hospital. The accused started to run and I chased him, asking him to stop, and he refused so I started shouting “thief’ “thief” before he stopped.
We then worked together with the accused to where we used to pack our ears while he was still holding his knife. I asked him he to stop there and wait for me before I drove out from the pack. I asked him to enter the car and we drive to the hospital. On reaching the hospital. The deceased elder brother was there, and they started to shout out each other with the accused before one civil defence officer, Magaji intervened and arrested the accused. I do not
10
know where the knife was for when I went into the pack he was still holding the knife, but when I come out it was no longer in his hands”.
The scene of crime was not an issue in the trial. The appellant did not raise the defence of alibi or raise any issue about the scene of crime. The appellant testified as DW2 corroborating everything that PW4 said including the scene of the crime.
The clear testimony of PW4 reproduced above render the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that none of the prosecution witnesses testified on the scene of the crime idle and frivolous.
The vicinity in which the crime occurred was not in doubt and all the witnesses including the appellant showed no confusion about the fact that the incident occurred near their homes in Sabon Fegi Ward in Damaturu.
The appellant has not even alleged or shown that the above findings of the Court of Appeal are perverse. In any case, the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 and that of the appellant as DW2 show that the Court of Appeal’s finding is justified by the evidence and therefore not perverse.
Issue No. 1 is resolved against the appellant.
Let me now
11
determine issue No. 2 which asks –
“Whether having regards to the totality of the evidence led before the trial Court, the Court was right in holding that the required ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code were proved beyond reasonable doubt?- relate to Ground one of the Amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal”.
The issue as couched is not valid for this Court’s consideration. This is a general ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal on the totality of the evidence. It invites this Court to consider the totality of the evidence elicited at the trial and determine if the Court of Appeal correctly held that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This Court as the second appellate Court lacks the jurisdiction to engage in such a determination in an appeal against concurrent findings on facts. The scope of its power in such an appeal is very narrow as it is limited to determining complaints that the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or violate the provision of a law causing injustice. There is no ground of this appeal that has complained that any
12
concurrent findings of fact is perverse or is in breach of some law.
None of the issues raised for determination contend that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is perverse in any respect.
For the above reasons, issue No. 2 is struck out for incompetence. It is not a valid issue for determination by this Court.
On the whole, this appeal fails as it lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 16-11-2018 in Appeal No. CA/J/304C/2017 affirming the judgment of the High Court of Yobe State in criminal case No. YBS/DT/HC/30C/2016 delivered on 13-3-2017 convicting and sentencing the appellant to death is hereby further affirmed.
Concurring Opinion(s)
— JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.:
I read in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC just delivered. I agree with both the reasons and conclusion therein. I adopt same as mine. Appeal is also dismissed by me.
Appeal Dismissed.
— HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.:
I have read the judgment of my learned brother EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal is devoid of merit and should be
13
dismissed.’
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division Coram: Adzira Gana Mshelia, Tani Yusuff Hassan and Boloukromo M. Ugo JJCA delivered on the 16th day of November, 2018.
The Appellant was charged on a charge of Culpable Homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code. The Appellant upon arraignment at the trial Court pleaded not guilty.
The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:
The prosecution’s case at the trial Court was that on the 29th day of September, 2016 in Sabon Fegi Ward, Damaturu, the deceased accused the appellant of the theft of a phone and refused to retract the allegation even after the truth was uncovered that the purported stolen phone was not stolen but was in the possession of a relation of the owner. As a result of this, the deceased and the appellant got into an argument and the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife.
At the trial, the respondent (the prosecution) called six (6) witnesses who testified as PW1-PW6 respectively and tendered two (2) exhibits marked as Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’. The appellant called one witness and also testified for
14
himself.
After the hearing and conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge on the 13th day of March, 2017 found the appellant guilty of the charge and the appellant was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with the decision at the trial Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal but was unsuccessful in his appeal as the Court of Appeal on the 16th day of November, 2018 upheld and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant vide a Notice of Appeal, appealed to this Court on one (1) ground seeking the following reliefs:
1. AN ORDER setting aside the judgment of the lower Courts in this case.
2. AN ORDER of this honourable Court discharging and acquitting the Appellant.
The Appellant in his brief of argument settled by Sunday S. Obende, Esq., formulated two issues for determination to wit:
1. Whether by the Respondent’s failure to disclose the place of commission of the offence, the trial Court’s conviction and sentence of the Appellant was proper in law.-(Distilled from ground 2).
2. Whether having regards to the
15
totality of the evidence led before the trial Court, the Court below was right in holding that the required ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide under Section 221 of the Penal Code were proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Distilled from ground 1).
The Respondent in its brief of argument settled by Baba Dala Fika, Esq., adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant.
The Appellant further filed a reply.
After reading the record and arguments of both Counsel, I am inclined to adopt the second issue formulated by the Appellant and to utilize same to determine this appeal.
OPINION
My Lords, this Court in KOLAWOLE v. STATE (2021) LPELR- 58390(SC) (Pp. 15 paras. D) held that:
“The burden of proving the guilt of a defendant for the offences he was charged with beyond reasonable doubt is discharged when the prosecution proves by evidence the ingredients or elements of the offences charged.”
The Appellant’s Counsel in his brief raised an issue for determination as to whether the Respondent’s failure to disclose the place of commission of the offence and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial Court was proper
16
in law.
My Lords, it is instructive to note that locus criminis in its literal interpretation simply means “a place where the crime was committed”. In a criminal trial, the locus criminis is a fact in issue and ought to be proved, along with other facts in issue, beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. This is in conformity with the presumption of innocence as enshrined in Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as altered).
In this appeal, the locus criminis was properly stated in the charge as recorded on page 3 of the record thus:
“That you Mohammed Isah Bakar ‘M’ on or about the 29th September, 2016 at about 1100hrs in Sa bon Fegi Ward, Damaturu which is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did commit Culpable Homicide punishable with death in that you caused the death of one Abubakar Ibrahim ‘M’ by doing an act to wit stabbing him on his neck with a knife with the knowledge that death would be the probable consequences of your act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code”.
As copiously alluded, to the above, the appellant himself in his
17
confessional statement and testimony at the trial Court as recorded on page 27 of the record stated that the locus criminis was at Sabon Fegi Ward, Damaturu.
PW2, the investigating police officer attached to State CID Damaturu in his testimony on page 15 of the record also testified that from the narration of the appellant in his confessional statement, he and another investigating police officer visited the scene of crime for a detailed investigation of the crime. All the above imply that the two investigating police officers visited Sabon Fegi Ward, Damaturu (the locus criminis) as narrated by the Appellant for investigation.
PW4 who is also an eye witness, in his testimony as recorded on page 20 of the record confirmed that the crime was committed at Sabon Fegi Ward, Damaturu. Thus, there is no doubt by virtue of the combined effect of the evidence of Exhibit ‘B’ (appellant’s confessional statement), testimonies of PW2 and PW4, the locus criminis had been proved by the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellant Counsel’s argument that the Respondent did not disclose the locus criminis is legally and factually untrue and it is
18
misconceived.
On the second leg of this issue, it is settled law that in a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death, the essential ingredients which the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction are as follows: (a) That the deceased died (b) That the death of the deceased person resulted from the acts of the Defendant (c) That the Defendant caused the death of the deceased intentionally or with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence of his action. The prosecution must prove that the death of the deceased person resulted from the act of the Defendant by direct eye witness account, circumstantial evidence from which the guilt of the Defendant can be inferred or by free and voluntary confessional statement of guilt which is direct and positive. See JUNAIDU V. STATE (2021) LPELR- 55199(SC) (Pp. 3-4 paras. C).
In this case, both counsels agreed that the deceased died.
However, the appellant’s counsel in his argument argued that the respondent did not prove the guilt of the appellant for the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt.
My Lords, in MOHAMMED V. STATE (2022) LPELR-57915(SC) (Pp. 28 paras.
19
B) this Court held that:
“It is settled that where the confession of an accused is a direct and positive admission of guilt, it can be used solely to convict him. See Solola v. The State (2005) 3 QCCR160 at Pg. 188; see also Bature v. The State (1994) 1 NWLR Pt. 320 Pg. 267at 285-286; Edhigere v. The State (1996) 8 NWLR Pt. 464 Pg. 1 at 13.”
The Appellant in his confessional statement on page 9 of-the record gave direct and positive admission of the commission of the offence as follows:
“In the morning of Thursday 29-09-2-16, I left home to go and repair my bicycle then my friend and my neighbor called me on the phone and asked me where I am (sic) and I told him I was around the central roundabout, I asked him is there any problem and he said no so I gave my phone to a friend to send me a song then I left to get a drink around Al-Arabia restaurant where I met my neighbor not knowing he was stalking me suspecting that I took his phone based on an information he received from a guy called commissioner that he saw me entering the house so they took me in their car and return me to Sabon Fegi where he lived and in the process of investigating, the
20
phone was found with his brother then I went to the house of the person that accused me of stealing the phone, called him to testify (sic) that he didn’t see me but he refused and started insulting me and calling me thief which made me more provoked and we started fighting. Before the fight started, I went to my house and got a kitchen knife which conceal in my body so I can use it to threaten him to tell the truth and apologize. Then when we engage in hand to hand combat, I brought out the knife and stabbed him around his ears”.
Further, my Lords, the Appellant during his examination in chief at the trial Court, on pages 27-28 of the record, was also consistent in his narration of how the commission of the crime unfolded as stated in his confessional statement. What more is needed to prove the guilt of the appellant than a clear, positive and direct admission of the offence as charged?
It is noteworthy that in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that the death of the deceased person resulted from the act of the Defendant by direct eye witness account, circumstantial evidence from which the guilt of the Defendant can be inferred or by free
21
and voluntary confessional statement of guilt which is direct and positive.
See JUNAIDU v. STATE (SUPRA), ILIYASU V. STATE (2014) 15 NWLR (Part 1430) 245.
In this case, there was an eye witness who saw the appellant stab the deceased with a knife.
PW4 in his testimony as recorded on page 21 of the record testified thus:
“After about 20 minutes, I was standing in front of my house when the accused and Bukar Ibrahim Yaga, the deceased came to me and the accused asked the deceased when did he see him coming out of the house. I asked the accused to let things pass and forget about the whole issue. The deceased was smiling while the accused was shouting at him. I try to calm the accused down but he refused to listen to me. Before I knew the accused removed a knife from his trouser and chased the deceased while I pushed the accused away. Then he later ran to the deceased, kicked him with his leg and stabbed the deceased with the knife under the ear. When he kick the deceased with his leg, the deceased beat forward (sic) and the accused stabbed him with the knife. The deceased started bleeding immediately”.
In AGU v. STATE (2017)
22
LPELR-41664(SC)(Pp. 28 paras. A) this Court held that:
“The evidence of an eyewitness is one of the best evidence available provided the eyewitness is telling the truth.”
The evidence of PW4 undoubtedly establishes that the appellant certainly stabbed the deceased with a knife. learned appellant’s counsel in paragraph 5.10 of his brief also conceded to the fact that there was a misunderstanding between the appellant and the deceased and that the deceased was injured following an attack by the appellant. Further, my Lords, after the appellant had stabbed the deceased with a knife, the deceased was rushed to the hospital where the deceased was clinically declared dead by PW5, a medical doctor.
PW5 on page 23 of the record testified thus:
“On 29/9/16, I was on duty at the Accident and Emergency Hospital, General Sani Abacha Hospital when my attention was called by the Nursing staff on duty at around 10:05 am to come and certified (sic) a patient that was brought dead as seen as I came to the scene, I immediately examined the patient and I noticed a deep cut on the left side of the neck of the patient and the patient was covered all over with
23
blood. On further examination, I noticed there was no evidence of life. I then declared the patient clinically dead. The cause of death was bleeding from the wound he had”.
Appellant’s counsel argued that at the hospital, it took 30 minutes before the deceased was attended to by a medical doctor and that there was no medical report disclosing the cause of death of the deceased. Counsel also argued that there was no link between the death of the deceased and the act of the appellant to warrant the finding that his stabbing of the deceased ultimately caused his death.
Moreover, the medical doctor who examined the deceased confirmed that the deceased died as a result of the stab wound he sustained from the appellant.
In ZUBAIRU v. STATE (2015) LPELR-40835(SC)(Pp. 21 paras. C)” this Court held that:
“Medical Certificate as to the cause of death may be dispensed with where death occurred instantly or almost immediately from the voluntary act of the accused. See Aiguoreghian v. The State (2004) 1 SC (Pt.1) 65; Uluebeka v. State (2000) 4 SC (Pt.1) 203; Uguru v. State (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 771) 90.”
There is a dear understanding that the deceased
24
died on the same day he was grievously stabbed by the appellant with a knife and PW5 certified medically that the deceased died as a result of the stab wound inflicted on him by the appellant. This suffices to prove that the chain of event from the appellant’s stab to the deceased death was not broken as it evidently linked the appellant to the death of the deceased. From the confession of the appellant which he did not resile from in Court, it is clear that the appellant premediated the killing of the deceased. He went looking for a fight to assuage his pride because of the false allegation of stealing. He went armed and prepared to inflict grievous bodily harm. The prosecution proved malice aforethought which elevates the case from fighting as a result of provocation to premeditated murder and culpable homicide punishable with death.
Irrefutably my lords, the appellant had the intention and full knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm will occur from his action when he stabbed the deceased. The appellant in this case is deemed to intend the natural consequences of his act. See STATE v. EGWU (2021) LPELR-56609(SC) (Pp. 56-57 paras. C),
25
AFOLABI v. STATE (2016) LPELR-40300(SC) (Pp. 51 paras. A), UKPONG v. STATE (2019) LPELR-46427(SC) (Pp. 57 paras. E-E).
My lords, from the foregoing, the Respondent has successfully proved that the deceased died, the death of the deceased person resulted from the acts of the Appellant and the appellant caused the death of the deceased intentionally and with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence of his action. The evidence adduced is sufficient to satisfy the standard necessary for a conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death.
Having gone through the record of appeal, the arguments of both Counsel and the totality of the evidence adduced by the respondent, I am of the opinion that the two (2) lower Courts were right to have found the Appellant guilty as charged for the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death and there was absolutely nothing perverse in the judgment and no miscarriage of justice has occurred that would warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the two (2) lower Courts. See ADDO v. STATE (2020) LPELR-55521(SC) (Pp. 25-26 paras. F), OKOLIE v. STATE (2023) LPELR- 59975(SC)
26
(Pp. 29-30 paras. D).
The decision of the Court below in CA/J/304C/2017 delivered on the 16th day of November, 2018 is hereby affirmed.
Appeal dismissed.
— IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.:
I concur with the reasoning and conclusion reached in the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, the Hon. Justice Emmanuel A. Agim JSC, to the effect that the instant appeal is grossly devoid of merits.
Having thus adopted of the reasoning and conclusion in the judgment in question as mine, I too hereby dismiss the appeal for lacking in merits.
Appeal dismissed.
— TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.:
I had a preview of the illuminating leading judgment prepared and rendered in this appeal by my Lord and learned brother, EMMANUJEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC.
I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion and therefore adopt the judgment as my own. I have nothing extra to add.
27
Dissenting Opinion(s)
None
REFERENCES
Research enhancement — dynamically linked
Referenced Judgments
Addo v. State (2020) LPELR-55521(SC) — cited at p. 26
Afolabi v. State (2016) LPELR-40300(SC) — cited at p. 26
Agu v. State (2017) LPELR-41664(SC) — cited at p. 22
Aiguoreghian v. The State (2004) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 65 — cited at p. 24
Bature v. The State (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 320) 267 — cited at p. 20
Edhigere v. The State (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 464) 1 — cited at p. 20
Iliyasu v. State (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1430) 245 — cited at p. 22
Junaidu v. State (2021) LPELR-55199(SC) — cited at pp. 19, 22
Kolawole v. State (2021) LPELR-58390(SC) — cited at p. 16
Mohammed v. State (2022) LPELR-57915(SC) — cited at p. 19
Okolie v. State (2023) LPELR-59975(SC) — cited at p. 26
Solola v. The State (2005) 3 QCCR 160 — cited at p. 20
State v. Egwu (2021) LPELR-56609(SC) — cited at p. 25
Uguru v. State (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 771) 90 — cited at p. 24
Ukpong v. State (2019) LPELR-46427(SC) — cited at p. 26
Uluebeka v. State (2000) 4 SC (Pt. 1) 203 — cited at p. 24
Zubairu v. State (2015) LPELR-40835(SC) — cited at p. 24
Referenced Statutes
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as altered), Sections 36(5), 233, 240, 241 — cited at pp. 2, 3, 17
Penal Code, Section 221 — cited at pp. 2, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18
