Muhammadu Usman (Aka Alhajiyel) v. The State (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Yobe State, Coram Judice: Amina Shehu, J., delivered on 30th March, 2022 in charge No. YBS/PT/HC/NNR/01C/2021: The State v. Muhammadu Usman A.K.A. Alhajiyel.

The appellant, who was the accused person at the lower court, was arraigned on a one count charge of culpable homicide punishable with death. At the end of the trial, the lower court held that the charge had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it convicted the appellant as charged and in imposing sentence held that it would be lenient and consequently sentenced the appellant to twenty (20) years imprisonment.

By law, the punishment upon conviction for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death is the mandatory death sentence. The lower court imposed a punishment of custodial sentence for a term of twenty (20) years.

However, no issue has been made of the sentence imposed in this appeal, so I will let that sleeping dog continue with its peaceful slumber.

The background facts of the case as garnered from the cold printed records disclose that the case is grounded in the belief in witchcraft. A relation of the appellant had taken ill, and it was said that the illness was caused by the deceased who had bewitched her and cast a spell on her.

The appellant among others tried to get the deceased to cross their sick relative with both legs so that the spell would be removed. The deceased refused. The deceased was later killed in her farm and the appellant was charged to court for her murder.

In proof of its case, the prosecution called two witnesses, including the PW2, who gave an eyewitness account of the killing of the deceased. The appellant in defence testified for himself and called two other witnesses, whose testimony raised the defence of alibi.

The appellant, dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court appealed against the same by notice of appeal filed on 28th June, 2022. The judgment of the lower court is at pages 64 – 72 of the records of appeal, while the notice of appeal is at pages 73 – 78 of the records of appeal.

In prosecution of the appeal, the records of appeal was compiled and transmitted, and briefs of argument filed and exchanged. The said briefs were adopted and relied upon by learned counsel at the hearing of the appeal.

In the appellants brief which was filed on 27th September 2022, but deemed as properly filed on 31st January, 2024, two issues were distilled for determination as follows:

1. Whether from the circumstances of this case, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant in spite of the obvious and material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. (Distilled from grounds 1 and 2).
2. Whether or not the appellant was entitled to benefit from the defence of Alibi considering the fact that it was raised at the earliest opportunity and the respondent has not placed anything before the court to debunk same. (Distilled from ground 3).

The respondent adopted the two issues formulated by the appellant in the respondents brief filed on 11th March, 2024 but deemed as properly filed on 13th March, 2024.

Submissions of the appellants counsel

The appellant submits that the prosecution has the duty to prove all the essential elements of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt. The cases of Adio v. The State (1986) 4 S.C 194 at 219 – 220 and Emeka v. The State (2001) 32 WRN 37; (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734) 666 at 669 ratio 1 were referred to.