Kasa V. the State (1994)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWAIS, J.S.C. 

On July 23rd, 1987 the appellant together with another accused person were convicted of culpable homicide punishable with death by the High Court of Sokoto State sitting at Gausau (Abikpo, J.) The charge against them reads as follows:-

“That you Umaru Musa Kasa (sic) and you Babangida Gimba alias Jariri Kura on 27/11/86 at about 0430 hours at Mahuta in Zuru Local Government within the Gusau Judicial Division did commit culpable homicide punishable with death in that you together with two other persons now at large, caused the death of one Hajiya Arita by beating her with lethal weapons with the intention of killing her and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 221 of the Penal Code.”

The facts of the case, which are not in dispute, may be stated as follows:

The deceased – Hajiya Arita, was a food seller by occupation. Her mother (P.W.1) used to go to the deceased’s house every morning to assist the deceased in selling food. When P.W.1 went to the house of the deceased at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning of the day in question, she found the door leading to the house, which consisted of a parlour and a bedroom, opened. The curtain on the door to the bedroom was hanging. She entered the parlour and moved the curtain. She saw blood all over the bedroom while the deceased was lying dead on her back. P.W.1 then exclaimed that the 1st accused had fulfilled his threat to kill the deceased. She invited a man called Mamman (P.W.2) to come to the house to see what had happened. This he did. Soon after P.W.2 proceeded to the house of the Village Head of Mahuta to report of the incident to the Village Head (P.W.3). The Village Head went to the house of the deceased and saw her corpse. He sent P.W.2 to the Nigeria Police Station at Mahuta to lodge a complaint. Three policemen went to the house of the deceased and saw her body. A report was sent to Zuru Divisional Crime Branch by the policemen. As a result Cpt. Joseph Urogbo (P.W.7) was instructed to investigate the case. P.W.7 went to Mahuta in a landrover. He collected the corpse of the deceased and took it to the General Hospital at Zuru for post-mortem examination.

In the course of investigation P.W.7 arrested the appellant and the 2nd accused on information received. The appellant volunteered statements to the police on three separate occasions. The statements were taken down in writing and were put in evidence at the trial as Exhibits A1, B1 and C1. The 2nd accused volunteered only one statement.

Two days later after the arrest of the accused persons and taking them to Zuru. P.W.7 returned to Mahuta on 29/11/86 to continue with his investigation. He visited the house of the appellant where he found a shirt that was allegedly blood stained – (Exhibit H).

He collected the shirt together with a pair of shorts. He next went to the house of the deceased where he saw a pillow case that was stained with blood. He tore a piece, with blood stain on, from the pillow case (Exhibit J).

P.W.7 also went to Tungan Gomo where the 2nd accused person lived. He searched the house of the 2nd accused person and found a pair of trousers hidden under a bundle of guinea corn stalks (Exhibit F). The trousers were allegedly blood stained.

At the conclusion of the prosecution case, counsel for the appellant and the 2nd accused at the trial, indicated that they would not testify nor call any witness. The counsel rested the defence case on the case for the prosecution.

In a considered judgment, the learned trial Judge made the following remarks:-

“Because I am going to hold that the circumstantial evidence in this case point to the guilt of the 1st accused and 2nd accused, I am holding further that the two accused persons in concept (sic concert) with two (others) at large murdered the deceased (in) the presence of the 1st accused whether it was he who was striking the deadly blow on the deceased or merely a bystander gave the 2nd accused and the two some (sic) at large the encouragement to go ahead and kill and rob the deceased. In his 2nd additional statement, which the 1st accused admitted is a confessional statement, he admitted receiving two bundles of cloth as his share of the booty …………………………………………………. In the instant case, I see evidence against the two accused persons both direct and circumstantial. I find some evidence too, in the main circumstantial, coming from the statements of the 1st accused against the two persons at large. And I find no evidence against anyone else outside those four persons especially (sic) the two accused persons before me……………………………………………………….

I agree with learned defence counsel that none of the eight prosecution witnesses in this case was any eye witness. But the 1st accused admitted in his three statements being present at the scene and although his confessional statement in law can rebound (sic rebound) like boomerang (sic) against himself alone. The circumstantial evidence against (sic him) by his aunt 1st prosecution witness and the circumstantial evidence against the 2nd accused from at least the 4th, 5th and 7th prosecution witnesses are overwhelming.”

(parenthesis are mine).