Bello Sani Danlami V. The State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A. (Delivering The Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Niger State in the judgment of Honourable Justice Halima I. Abubakar, delivered on the 18th of April, 2013, in suit No.NSHC/SD/6C/2012.

By notice of appeal filed on the 2nd of July, 2013 the appellant appeals on the following grounds:

1. “The learned trial judge erred in law in convicting the appellant of the offense of culpable homicide, contrary to Section 221(1) of the Penal Code, Conspiracy, contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code, and Robbery, contrary to Section 298 of the Penal Code, in view of the totality of the evidence before the court.”
2. “The learned trial judge erred in law in convicting the appellants for culpable homicide punishable with death, conspiracy and armed robbery when the circumstances and cause of death of the deceased was unknown.

“That the whole decision is unwarranted and cannot be supported by the weight of evidence.”

FACTS IN BRIEF:

The appellant, along with one Shuaibu Bawa, Awalu Yahaya and Mustapha Umar were charged with conspiracy to commit felony to wit, causing the death of one Umar Jibrin, now deceased and later robbed the office of the manager of the station and took away the sum of N675,550.00 only from the safe in the Manager’s Office and thereby committed offences of conspiracy, culpable homicide and robbery contrary to Sections 97, 221 and 298 of the Penal Code.

The accused persons pleaded not guilty, as per page 128 and 129 of the record of appeal; the prosecution called 7 witnesses; a successful submission of no case was made on behalf of Shuaibu Bawa, leading to his discharge; the appellant, Awalu Yahaya and Mustapha Umar were left, and they defended themselves.

At the end of it all the appellant was convicted along with his co-accused persons, on the charge of conspiracy to death; on the charge of culpable homicide punishable with death, to death; on the charge of robbery to seven years imprisonment; and the items recovered from the 1st convict forfeited to the state. This is the subject of this appeal.

Akin Adewale Esq., learned counsel to the appellant formulated the following issues for determination by this court:

1. Whether the charge against the appellant which violated section 212 of the Criminal Procedure Code was bad for duplicity.
2. Whether from the evidence before the court, the prosecution has proved the offenses of conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with death, for which the appellant was convicted, beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the prosecution proved the offense of robbery beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction of the appellant.

These issues were adopted by Umar Musa Esq. of counsel to the respondent.

ISSUE ONE:

Whether the charge against the appellant which violated section 212 of the Criminal Procedure Code was bad for duplicity?

Akin Adewale Esq., submitted for the appellant that three charges in this case were wrongly framed together; and also that it is equally wrong to try the appellant jointly with the co accused persons, as that violates Section 212 of the Criminal Procedure Code; learned counsel contended that the joint trial of the appellant with the co-accused persons under a single charge that incorporated three distinct offenses also violated Section 212 of the CPC, as that act is prejudicial to the appellant, especially as the appellant did not deny having keys to the safe, which PW1 also had; he referred the court to IDOWU v. STATE (1998) 9 SCNJ 40 at 49 and urged this court to hold that this charge is bad for duplicity.

Omar Musa Esq., for the respondent submitted in response that the arguments of learned counsel to the appellant are misconceived, as the prosecution had moved the trial court to amend the previous charge filed by the appellant; he referred this court to pages 130 to 132 of the record, where the prayer was specifically granted at page 131 pursuant to section 181 of the CPC.