Bello Ibrahim V. The State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PAUL A. GALINJE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant herein was arraigned before the Sokoto State High Court, along with two other accused persons namely Hayatu Umar and Ibrahim Dan Auta charged with the offences of conspiracy to commit robbery and culpable homicide, culpable homicide and robbery contrary to sections 97, 221 and 298 of the Penal Code respectively.

Appellant pleaded not guilty to all the charges. In proof of its case, prosecution called six witnesses and tendered several documents including the confessional statement of the Appellant which were admitted in evidence. The Appellant gave evidence in his defence and called no further evidence. Learned Counsel for respective parties addressed the court. In a reserved and considered judgment, delivered on the 25th June 2012, Bello Abbas J.

Convicted the Appellant and his two accomplices on all the three counts charge and sentenced each of them to death by hanging and five years imprisonment under sections 221 and 298 of the Penal Code. No punishment was pronounced under section 97 of the Penal Code as the learned trial judge indicated in the judgment that punishment for conspiracy under section 97 is the same as having abetted the offence as charged.

It is against this conviction that the Appellant has brought this appeal. His initial notice of appeal at pages 106 – 108 of the record of this appeal dated and filed on the 12th July 2012 reads as follows:-

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

However by a motion dated 26th February 2013, and filed on the 27th February 2013, the Appellant sought for and was granted leave to file and argue three additional grounds of appeal. These additional grounds of appeal, without their particulars read as follows:-

1. The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the retracted confessional statement of the Appellant was irresistibly corroborated by circumstantial evidence proffered by Pw4 – Pw6 sufficiently to warrant conviction for the offences of conspiracy, Culpable Homicide and Armed Robbery.
2. The learned trial judge erred in law when he convicted and consequently sentenced the appellant for the offence charged without sufficient evidence being led in proof of the offence.
3. The learned trial judge erred in law when he attached so much weight to the retracted confessional statement to ground the conviction of the Appellant.

Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Mrs. Boma Ozobia, Learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated three issues for determination of this appeal.

These issues are hereunder reproduced as follows:-

1. Whether the lower court was right in holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence linking the Appellant to the commission of the crime.
2. Whether the lower court was right in attaching so much weight to the retracted confessional statement.
3. Whether the prosecution proved the offences against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction and sentence to death by hanging and five (5) years imprisonment with hard labour.

Learned Counsel says these three issues are formulated from the 1st, 3rd and 2nd grounds of appeal respectively. It will appear that no issue is formulated from the original ground of appeal. It is therefore deemed abandoned accordingly that ground of appeal is hereby struck out.

For the Respondent, two issues were formulated for determination of this appeal. They read thus:-

1. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced before the trial court, the prosecution has proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.
2. Whether the trial judge was right in convicting the appellant on the strength of evidence presented before it by the prosecution.

The issues formulated by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant are similar to those two issues formulated for the Respondent. They all question the assessment of the evidence before the learned trial judge and ascription of probative value to such evidence. Having therefore read through parties briefs of argument, I am of the firm view that the only issue calling for determination of this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as to warrant the conviction and sentence passed on the Appellant.

Before I consider the arguments of Learned Counsel on both side, I will like to set out, albeit in brief the facts of this case as encapsulated in the testimonies of Pw4, Pw5 and Pw6. Hayatu Umar, one of the accused persons who was tried and convicted along with the Appellant, on 22nd November 2009, the day the deceased was allegedly murdered, visited the home of the deceased several times and inquired about the deceased’s where about from the deceased wife. He told the deceased’s wife on inquiry that someone wanted to hire the services of the deceased’s camel to pack some stocks and he (Hayatu) was going to help the deceased to pack those stocks. Finally on that day, Hayatu met the deceased at home and together they rode out on the deceased’s Camel, Pw6, one Bashiru Isah also met Hayatu and the deceased on their way to wauru village on the donkey and that was the last time he saw the deceased alive. The statement of the Appellant in which he admitted taking part in the killing of the deceased and stealing his Camel was tendered and admitted as Exhibit A and the translated version Exhibit A1. In his evidence in chief, the Appellant he could not remember making the confessional statement.

In her argument, Mrs. Boma Ozobia leading Mrs. Lemea Abina, Learned Counsel to the Appellant, who also settled the Appellant’s brief of argument, submitted that the conviction of the Appellant was based on circumstantial evidence. According to the Learned Counsel, for circumstantial evidence to support a conviction for murder, the evidence must lead only to one conclusion, and that is that it was the accused and no other person that committed the offence. In aid Learned Counsel cited Isma’il Vs The State (2008)15 NWLR (Pt. 1111) 593, Ibo Vs The State (1971) NMLR. 245, Mustapha Mohammed & 1 Or Vs The State (2007) 30 NSCQR (Pt 1)364 at 377, Esai Vs The State (1976) 11 SC 39, Aigbadion VS The State (2000)7 NWLR (Pt. 666) 686. Learned Counsel made reference to the testimonies of Pw4, Pw5 and Pw6 which were held by the lower court to be the circumstantial evidence upon which it relied and contended that those pieces of evidence had no connection with the appellant herein, as the said pieces of evidence were vague imprecise and leaves room for reasonable doubt. In a further argument, Learned Counsel submitted that the statements of the two other persons who were convicted along with the Appellant did not implicate the Appellant as they mentioned names of persons other than the name of the Appellant, as such their statements cannot be used as a foundation for the conviction of the Appellant.