Abdulmumini Bala V. The State (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Kastina State Dustin-ma Judicial Division delivered on 12/5/14 in Charge No. KTH/DM/3C/2012 dated 10th June, 2012. The appellant and two other persons, Abdullahi Aliyu and Abdullahi Yusuf were in that one Count charge alleged of committing the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the penal code in that on or about the 22nd day of September, 2011 at about 001 hours while in company of other persons at large, they caused the death of Alhaji Garba Bello at Rugu forest, Safana Local Government Area of Katsina State by jointly beating and cutting him on the head and all over his body with sticks and axe which cause him injuries that led to his death.

?The three accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge whereupon the prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence through seven witnesses while each of the three accused persons gave evidence in defence of the charge but did not call any other witness. The two learned Counsel at the trial submitted written addresses which they subsequently

1

adopted. The learned trial judge found the accused persons guilty as charged, convicted them and sentenced each of them to death under Section 221 of the Penal code.

The 2nd accused, Abdulmumin Bala who was dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court of Kastina State aforesaid commenced the instant appeal through the Notice of Appeal dated 21/7/14 but filed on 22/7/14 with 6 grounds of appeal. In this Court, the Appellants’ Brief of Argument settled by J.J. Usman Esq. was filed on 9/9/14 while the Respondents’ Brief prepared by Murtala Aliyu Kankia Esq. Assistant Director, Public Prosecutor, Ministry of Justice Kastina State was filed on 10/10/14. The briefs were adopted at the hearing of the appeal and relied upon as the argument of the respective parties.

?The learned Counsel for the appellant formulated three issues for determination as follows: –

1. Whether the learned trial judge was right when his lordship held that the prosecutor has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right when his lordship held that failure of the prosecution to tender the confessional statement

2

of the appellant was not fatal to the prosecution’s case.

3. Whether the learned trial judge was right when his lordship held that the appellant actually intended to cause the deceased’s death thereby convicted the appellant for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death and sentenced him to death.

The above three issues were reproduced by the learned Counsel for the respondent in the respondent’s brief and they were adopted as the issues for determination. This appeal will therefore be considered and determined on the basis of those three issues formulated by the appellant and adopted by the respondent.

The learned Counsel for the appellant argued issues 1 and 3 together and argued that Section 36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) has provided that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty by which provision the burden of proving the charge is on the prosecution and must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because there is a presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person. The cases of Okoro V. State (1988) NWLR (Pt.

3

94) 255. Olowu V. Nigerian Navy (2007) ALL FWLR (pt. 350) 1278; Williams V. State (1992) NWLR (Pt. 261) 515; Alabi V. State (1993) 7 NWLR (pt.307) 511; Solola V. State (2005) 5 SC (Pt. 1) 135; Bakare V. State (1987) 3 SC 1; Aruna V. State (1990) NWLR (pt. 155) 125 were cited on this principle.

It was submitted that the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death being a capital offence required a high degree of proof; Ikem V. State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 378. To sustain a charge of murder, the prosecution argued that the ingredients stated in the case of Alewo Abogede V. The State (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 448) 270 must be removed and they must be proved conjunctively.