Gambo Ahmadu V. The State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

DALHATU ADAMU, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of High Court, Kazaure Judicial Division, Jigawa State, presided over by Hon. Justice Ahmed Gumel. The appellant was brought before the trial court upon a charge dated 28th July, 2009. According to what appears on the record of proceedings, the charge was indicated to have been read out to the appellant.

It was also indicated on the record that the appellant speaks Hausa. It is also on record that the charge was read to the appellant in Hausa language vice versa by the court’s Registrar Umar Murtala.

At the trial the prosecution called 4 witnesses namely:

1. Mallam Haruna Liman
2. Hussaini Haruna
3. James Biba (CP)
4. Cpl Muhammed Musa as (PW1 – 4).

The prosecution also tendered the purported confessional Statement of the appellant, which was admitted and marked as Exhibit P1 and P1A, Hausa and English translation of the confessional Statement of the appellant the prosecution also tendered an empty bottle of blood tonic which was also admitted and marked as Exhibit P2.

The appellant testified in her own defence where she denied the allegation of murder against her. The defence tendered a declaration of age which was objected and rejected, and marked as “TENDERED BUT REJECTED.”

After reviewing the evidence of the parties the trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced her to 10 years imprisonment. The 1st three years she should serve them under or in any Juvenile Reformatory Home, the rest of the seven years in a regular prison. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing 2 grounds of appeal with their particulars.

The following two issues are distilled for the determination of this appeal:

“(1) Whether the prosecution of the trial was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was caused by the Appellant by poisoning him with Gamaline “A” chemical and whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence before him GROUND ONE AND THREE.

(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to proceed and sentence the appellant under Section 225 of Jigawa State. Inspite of unequivocal findings that the appellant was under age when she committed the offence.”

ISSUE ONE

On the 1st issue for determination the appellant counsel submitted that the law places the burden of proving the alleged offence of the prosecution and it is also a settled law that a person charged before a court of law for an alleged offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty, he referred to Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2001 and Section 36(1) of the CFRN as amended. The counsel further submitted that proof required in criminal offence or trial is beyond reasonable doubt, he referred to the case of Gira vs. State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 443) pg 375 at 382 paras C – D.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was charged for an offence of murder and convicted accordingly. In other to succeed in proving the alleged offence, the prosecution must establish the following:

“(a) Whether the deceased have died