State V. Ahmed (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

This is an appeal by the State, against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja division delivered on 17th day of March, 2016 wherein the appeal by the respondent was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court, which convicted and sentenced the respondent, was set aside. The respondent was accordingly acquitted and discharged.

The respondent had been arraigned in the High Court of Niger State, sitting at Suleja. He was charged with the following offence:

“That you Ali Ahmed of Water Board Area, Suleja, Niger State on or about the 2nd of November, 2009 at about 15.35 hours within Suleja Judicial Division at Katoma River Suleja stabbed Mohammed Bello to death with a furniture knife and you thereby committed offence of culpable homicide, contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code.”

Upon the reading of the charge, the respondent pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. The prosecution called three (3) witnesses – PW1, PW2 and PW3 to prove its case while the respondent testified in defence but called no other witness. At the close of the trial and counsel’s addresses, in its reserved judgment, the trial Court found the respondent guilty as charged. He was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the respondent appealed to the Court below upon three grounds of appeal. In its unanimous decision, the Court below found for the respondent herein and his appeal was allowed. The State felt dissatisfied and has appealed to this Court on three grounds of appeal. Briefs of argument were filed and exchanged.

When the appeal came up for hearing on 31/10/2019, the appellant relied on the brief of argument filed on 5/7/2016 while the respondent relied on the brief of argument filed on 8/8/2016. Both briefs were respectively adopted.

The appellant formulated two issues for determination from the grounds of appeal earlier filed, while the respondent distilled a sole issue from the grounds of appeal. The appellant argued the two issues together in its brief of argument.

The learned appellant’s counsel contended that the lower Court upturned the judgment of the trial Court, inter alia, on the ground that the prosecution did not prove the identity of the deceased victim of the crime. Reference was made to the portion of the judgment of the lower Court. He conceded that the prosecution was ordinarily expected to prove the three ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code.

The appellant referred to the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the record. He referred to the evidence of the three witnesses called and the confessional statement of the respondent which was admitted along with the pictures of the deceased victim of the crime. He referred to the reason given by the Court below in upturning the conviction and sentence of the respondent by the trial Court. He contended that the Court below upturned the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the prosecution did not prove the identity of the deceased in the pictures tendered as Exhibits 2b and 2c as the person the respondent stabbed to death. Learned counsel contended that the findings of the Court below could not be supported by the evidence before the Court on record. He referred to the testimony of PW1 and PW3 which showed that a person was killed by the respondent through stabbing at Kantoma Riverside in Suleja. He referred to the photographs of the corpse of the victim later identified as Mohammed Bello showing the stab wounds which fit into the description of the injuries the respondent earlier confessed to have inflicted on the boy. Learned counsel submitted that even though the corpse of the deceased was not physically produced and there was no medical report, the photographs of the corpse of the deceased showed conclusively that he died of the stab wounds inflicted on him by the respondent. He relied on Onwumere Vs. The State (1991) 22 NSCC (Pt.1) 606 at 621 on non production of medical evidence.

Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, the absence of medical report as to cause of death of the deceased was not fatal to the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the guilt of the respondent by the prosecution. He contended that the failure of the family members to testify and identify the corpse of the deceased was not fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the photographs of the deceased spoke louder than viva voce evidence of the members of his family. He relied on Enewoh Vs. State (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 119) 98 at 108 per Uwaifo, J.C.A. (as he then was).

Learned counsel submitted further that even if the person who had identified the corpse of the deceased as Mohammed Bello to PW3 before he took the photographs of the corpse was not called to testify, such omission was not fatal to the case of the prosecution. He urged the Court to so hold. He relied onNjoku Vs The State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt.263) 714 at 723.

Learned counsel again referred to the pictures of the corpse of the deceased which were fully tendered and admitted as the pictures of the deceased taken before it was buried. He submitted that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the deceased and the trial Court was right to have convicted the respondent.

​On whether there was conflict in the evidence adduced and relied on by the prosecution, learned counsel submitted that there was no conflict in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He referred to the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 and the confessional statement of the respondent. He contended that PW3 was not cross examined on his testimony as to when he took the pictures of the corpse of the deceased which fit into the description of the stab wounds the respondent confessed he had inflicted on the victims he fought with at the Kantoma River in Suleja. Learned counsel submitted that the discrepancy in the dates was not fatal to the prosecution‘s case to warrant the setting aside of the conviction and sentence of the respondent.