Hajara Mohammed V. The State (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Kaduna State High Court in Charge No KDH/Z/2C/2013 delivered by Honorable Justice M. L. Bello on the 5th of June, 2014. The Appellant was arraigned before the lower Court on a two count charge of conspiracy to commit culpable homicide under Section 97 of the Penal Code Law of Kaduna State and culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code of Kaduna State. The Appellant was charged along with one Jamilu (now at large) and was alleged to have conspired with Jamilu to commit an illegal act and to have, in company of the said Jamilu, caused the death of one Abdullahi Sanni Abba on the 28th of February, 2012 in Kakiyeyi Village in Zaria Local Government Area of Kaduna State by attacking him with dangerous weapons and inflicting machete wounds on his face, back, neck and head and leaving him in a pool of his blood with the knowledge that death would be the probable consequence of the act.

?The Appellant pleaded Not Guilty and the matter proceeded to trial and in the course of which the Respondent called four witnesses and

1

tendered two exhibits in proof its case against the Appellant. The Appellant testified as the sole witness in her defence.

At the conclusion of trial and after the final addresses of Counsel, the lower Court found the Appellant Guilty on the two count charge and sentenced her to death by hanging. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court and she caused her Counsel to file a notice of appeal against it. The notice of appeal is dated the 20th of August, 2014 and it contained three grounds of appeal.

In canvassing the case of the Appellant in this appeal, his Counsel filed a brief of arguments dated the 27th of February, 2015 on the 2nd of March, 2015 and the brief of arguments was deemed properly filed and served by this Court on the 27th of April, 2015. In response, Counsel to the Respondent filed a brief of arguments dated the 25th of May, 2015 on the 26th of May, 2015. At the hearing of the appeal, Counsel to the parties relied on and adopted the arguments in their respective briefs as their oral submissions in this appeal.

Counsel to the Appellant formulated three issues for determination in this appeal and these

2

were:
i. Whether the lower Court was right in convicting the Appellant for conspiracy and culpable homicide when it failed to warn itself of the dangers of so doing.
ii. Whether the lower Court was right in relying on the contradictory evidence of the first and second prosecution witnesses to convict the Appellant.
iii. Whether the trial Court has properly evaluated and acted on the evidence placed before it in arriving at its judgment and if it has failed, whether that has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
?
In arguing the first and second issues for determination, Counsel stated that the evidence of the first and second prosecution witnesses were such that no reasonable Court would rely on it to convict without warning itself of the dangers of doing so and he thereafter traversed through the testimonies of the first and second prosecution witnesses and stated that the testimonies of the third and fourth prosecution witnesses added no value to the case of the Respondent against the Appellant. Counsel stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory and inconsistent and that the law is that where such

3

contradictions and inconsistencies cast a reasonable doubt on the guilt of an accused person, that accused person should be given the benefit of doubt and should not be convicted on the basis of such unreliable evidence and he referred to the case of Onuchukwu Vs State (1998) 4 NWLR pt 547) 576. Counsel stated that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt and that suspicion, no matter the gravity, is not a substitute for the establishment of the guilt of an accused on the standard laid down by law and a trial Court should not speculate on evidence and he referred to the cases of Ugwu Vs State (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 558) 397, Mohammed Vs State (1997) 9 NWLR 169 and Emeka Vs State (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt 559) 567. Counsel urged this Court to find that there was no evidence to sustain the charge against the Appellant.
?
On the third issue for determination, Counsel urged this Court to hold that the lower Court did not properly evaluate and act on the evidence before him in arriving at the conclusion that the Appellant was guilty as charged and stated that a trial Court has a primary duty to consider all the evidence

4

before it and that this includes a rationalization of the facts available on each side upon which a finding is necessary to be made and he referred to the cases of Mogaji Vs Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91 and Adebayo Vs Adesei (2005) All FWLR (Pt 240) 152. Counsel stated that the ingredient of a good judgment is a consideration of all evidence before the Court and that in the instant case, the lower Court relied on the contradictory testimonies of the first and second prosecution witnesses, without properly evaluating and without considering the evidence given by the two witnesses under cross-examination, in coming to its conclusion on the guilt of the Appellant. Counsel stated that a serious miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the non-appraisal and/or the improper evaluation and appraisal of the evidence by the lower Court and that the judgment thus lacked the basic attributes of a good judgment and that this Court is empowered to interfere with the evaluation of evidence carried out by the lower Court in such circumstances and review the evidence and he referred to the cases of Olafemi Vs Ayo (2010) All FWLR (Pt 526) 547, Strabag Construction (Nig) Ltd Vs