LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Proof – Whether Non-Production of Murder Weapon Is Fatal to Prosecution’s Case
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The failure to produce the murder weapon during the trial is, in my view, inconsequential. It is the intentional murderous assault on a vital part of the body which leads to conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death. There can be no doubt that a person delivering a violent blow with a stick or club on a vulnerable part of the body such as the head must be deemed to have intended to cause such bodily injury as he knew that death would be the probable consequence of his act.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uthman Mohammed, JSC, in Garba & Ors v. State (2000) NLC-1571999(SC) at p. 7; Paras C–D.
"The failure to produce the murder weapon during the trial is, in my view, inconsequential. It is the intentional murderous assault on a vital part of the body which leads to conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death. There can be no doubt that a person delivering a violent blow with a stick or club on a vulnerable part of the body such as the head must be deemed to have intended to cause such bodily injury as he knew that death would be the probable consequence of his act."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Non-production of the murder weapon is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Conviction for murder can rest on evidence of the assault and resulting death without the weapon being tendered. What matters is proof of intentional murderous assault on a vital body part from which death was the probable consequence. The weapon’s absence does not negate the act or the intent. Circumstantial and testimonial evidence can sufficiently establish the assault. The focus is on the act, its nature, and the resulting death, not on producing the instrument used.