Abdullahi Umar V The State (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division hereinafter called the lower court. The latter court unanimously dismissed the appeal by the appellant herein and affirmed the judgment of the trial court which convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. There are therefore two concurrent decisions of the two lower courts.

CHARGE

“That you Abdullahi Umar on or about 2355hrs at Emir Yahaya Road Sokoto judicial Division did commit the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death in that you caused the death of one Jamilu Muhammed by stabbing him with a scissors on the chest with the knowledge that his death would be the probable and not only likely consequence of your act and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 221 (b) of the Penal code”.

The accused person, now Appellant, pleaded not guilty to the charge. It was stated in the record of proceedings that the accused person/Appellant “speaks hausa”.

The prosecution called three witnesses who testified on their behalf and closed its case. The accused person testified as Dw1 and called no witness. Parties then addressed the court.

The defence counsel addressed the high court, now trial court, and submitted that the prosecution failed to prove all the ingredients of murder against the accused person. The defence further stated that the prosecution could not adduce evidence to show that the accused intentionally caused the death of Jamilu Muhammed with the knowledge that the injury caused to the deceased would cause his death. He said and urged that the trial court should give the benefit of the accident to the accused person and to discharge and acquit him under Section 48 of the penal code.

The prosecution also addressed that court and urged the trial court to find the accused guilty, convict and sentence him to death. Since the prosecution according to the prosecution, proved all the ingredients of the offence of murder, the court should convict the accused person as charged.

After the conclusions of evidence and addresses in a reserved judgment, the trial court delivered its judgment convicting the accused person and sentenced him to death.

“Looking at the circumstances of this case, with respect, it cannot be said that the act of the accused of stabbing the deceased was done without any criminal intention or knowledge or that it was done in the course of doing a lawful act and in a lawful manner and by lawful means. From the foregoing it is my considered view that the prosecution had proved this ingredient by establishing that there was an intention to cause grievous bodily harm by the accused see Uche v. The State (supra).

In the circumstance therefore, having carefully examined the entire evidence presented before me including consideration of some possible defences opened to the accused which I found do not avail him from the circumstances of the case, leading to the conclusion that the accused caused the death of Jamilu Muhammed (Now deceased) by stabbing him on the ribs with a scissors. I therefore hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.

I find the accused guilty for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to section 221 (b) of the penal code as charged, and I convict him accordingly.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court the Appellant un-successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal Sokoto Division and filed a Notice of Appeal containing one single ground of appeal thus:-

“The decision of the trial court is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial”.