Danjuma Gideon & Ors V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Gombe State High Court of Justice presided over by Hon. Justice I. A. Awak delivered on the 12th day of February, 2013.

The appellants were charged with, tried, convicted and sentenced for the offences of conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 97 and 221 of the Penal Code respectively by the lower Court.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal dated the 30th day of April, 2013 and filed on the 7th day of May, 2013 consisting of twelve grounds as follows:

1. The judgment of High Court of Justice Gombe delivered on the 12th February, 2013 is unwarranted, unreasonable and unsupported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.
2. The lower Judge erred in law when he failed and refused to consider the cogent and strong defences put forward by the convicts.”
3. The trial lower judge erred in law when he convicted and sentenced the appellants as charged. When the prosecution respondent deliberately concealed vital

information which if exposed would show the fallacy of the respondent case (sic).

4. The lower judge erred in law, when heavily relied on the testimony of 1st, 2nd and 3rd prosecution witnesses who are blood sisters to the victim moreso their statement to the police were of variance with their statement (sic).
5. The lower trial judge erred in law when he found all the appellants guilty of conspiracy to commit culpable homicide contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code, when the respondent failed to proof the ingredients of conspiracy under section, under reference (sic)
6. The trial judge erred in law when he convicted and sentenced the 4th appellant to death contrary to Section 97 and 221 of the Penal Code for merely uttering words which were capable of several interpretation.
7. The lower trial judge, delivered its (sic) judgment without considering the exhibits tendered before him which by so doing occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice.
8. The trial lower Court erred in law, when he found the appellants guilty of culpable homicide punishable with death, where no intention to cause death was proved.
9. The Hon. Trial lower

Judge erred in law, when he held that the defence of property was not available to the appellants as such defences are limited to dwelling house and (sic)

10. The Hon. Lower judge closed his eyes to the defences of property, private defences, self defences or others etc.
11. The trial lower judge erred in law when he found the appellants guilty of conspiracy and culpable homicide punishable with death, when the prosecution failed to proof the case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. The lower trial judge failed woefully, to properly evaluate the evidence placed before him.”

From the twelve grounds of appeal above, learned Counsel for the Appellants A. Y. Galadima, Esq. in a brief settled by him, distilled two issues for determination as follows:

(i) Whether, having regard to the defence of provocation raised by the appellants the refusal of the prosecution to produce the 1st appellant’s Hospital Card and or medical certificate does not amount to screening and withholding of evidence as to occasion a miscarriage of justice to the appellants. (Distilled from ground 3)

(ii) Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case,

the offence of conspiracy contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code Law was established against the Appellant as to warrant their conviction and sentence thereto by the lower Court (Distilled from Ground 5).

(iii) Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence adduced before arriving at its decision (Distilled from Grounds 4, 7 and 12)

(iv) Whether from the circumstance of this case, trial Court carefully consider all the defences raised by the appellants (Distilled from Grounds 2, 10 & 11)

(v) Whether having regard to the circumstance of this case and the totality of the evidence adduced, the trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing all the appellants to death. (Distilled from Grounds 6 & 8)”

On his part, learned Counsel for the Respondent, Abubakar Jundugo, Principal State Counsel, Ministry of Justice, Gombe, State in a brief settled by him raised two issues for determination as follows: