Haruna v. State (2022) LLJR-SC

Haruna v. State (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

The appellant herein was arraigned before the High Court of Kaduna State on a one-count charge of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code Law of Kaduna State, 1991. It was alleged that on or about August 13th, 2013, the appellant had attacked one Musa Bello (the deceased) by hitting a pestle, twice on his head while he was asleep in his room, as a result of which he sustained injuries and subsequently died. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.

At the trial, the Prosecution/respondent called four witnesses to prove its case, and tendered four exhibits in the course of trial. The appellant did not call any witness, but rested her case on that of the Prosecution/respondent.

The trial Court, by its judgment delivered on July 28th, 2016, found the appellant not guilty of the charge, and consequently discharged and acquitted the appellant.

Dissatisfied with that judgment, the respondent lodged an appeal via a Notice of Appeal filed on October 11th, 2016, at the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the lower Court),” The lower Court found merit in the appeal, Accordingly, it reversed the judgment of the trial Court, It sentenced the appellant to death.

Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant now appealed to this Court. By a Brief of Argument, filed on February 22nd, 2021, the appellant distilled a sole issue for determination, to wit:

See also  Napoleon S. Orianzi V. The Attorney-general, Rivers State & Ors (2017) LLJR-SC

Whether the lower Court was right when it upturned the judgment of the trial Court on the basis that all the ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death had been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant herein?

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent failed at the trial Court to discharge the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt, the ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death, with which the appellant was charged. Cited in support were the following cases: Dau v. State [2016) 7 NWLR (pt.1510) 83 at 107; Shande v. State [2004] FWLR (pt.223) 1955 at 1968; Abidoye v. F.R.N [2014] All FWLR (pt.722) 1624, 1641, para F-G.

He further pointed out that appellant denied making exhibits A, A1 and B before they were admitted in evidence. Thus, in his submission, any reliance on them would amount to picking the contents of the said exhibits over the inconsistent evidence adduced by PW1-PW4, which cannot successfully corroborate the contents of the said exhibits.

He contended that there was absence of medical evidence to prove the death of the deceased person. He made heavy weather on the importance of a medical report to have been adduced in this case, as there might have been another or a different fact from the attack, that resulted in the death of the deceased person or likelihood of more than one cause of death, Ebong v. State [2012] All FWLR (pt.633) 1945-1968-1969, H-A.

The alleged lethal weapon, in the nature of a pestle, used in killing the deceased, he pointed out, was neither found nor produced in evidence, citing The Queen v. Chukwudi-Obiasa [1962-1966] WNLR 354, 357.

See also  Okunade Kolawole V The State (2015) LLJR-SC

Relying on the cases of Lawrence Asuquo Thomas v. State [1994] LPELR- 3239 (SC) and Festus Amayo v. State [2001] LPELR-459 (SC), learned counsel further contended that the intent to kill is also lacking as the respondent, throughout the gamut of trial, failed to adduce evidence to prove that the appellant herein intended to kill Musa Bello by merely hitting him with a wooden pestle. He urged this Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court.

RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
On his part, learned counsel for the respondent, adopting the Brief of Argument filed on March 4th, 2019, insisted that the respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

He pointed out that the appellant, in her confessional statement, tendered as exhibits A, A1 and B, admitted to hitting the deceased person with a pestle twice on his head while he was asleep.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *