Israel Amos V. The State (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.

This appeal arose to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, delivered on the 1st of August, 2013. The lower Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death and armed robbery which was earlier given by the trial Court. The judgment of the lower Court is contained at pages 132-168 of the Record of Appeal.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant lodged the instant appeal through a Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 15th day of August, 2013, which is contained at pages 169-180 of the Record of Appeal. The Appellant’s appeal is premised on thirteen grounds. I’ll provide a quick summary of the whole of thirteen (13) grounds. Ground one contends that the Court of Appeal erred in law and thus occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice to the Appellant when it affirmed the conviction of the Appellant for culpable homicide punishable with death based on the evidence of the prosecution, which evidence is not cogent.

1

In his ground two, the Appellant contended that the lower Court erred in law in convicting the Appellant despite failure of the prosecution to call as a witness the medical practitioner that performed post mortem examination on the deceased. Ground three relates to alleged error of law due to reliance of the Court below on the evidence of PW3 which corroborates the confession of the Appellant. Ground four alleged failure to properly evaluate the evidence of the Appellant having retracted Exhibit B, the Appellant’s confessional statement. Ground five alleges error of the lower Court in affirming the conviction of the Appellant despite failure of the prosecution to proof armed robbery. Ground seven alleges error of the lower Court in confirming the Appellant’s sentence and conviction despite failure of the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the two offences through credible and/or convincing evidence. Ground eight contends that the lower Court erred in law and same occasioned a miscarriage of justice by treating Exhibit B as a confessional statement.

Ground nine alleges error of law in accepting and acting on the evidence that the Appellant killed the deceased.

2

I wish to observe that the Appellant skipped “Ground ten”. No ground ten is provided for in the Notice of Appeal under review. However, ground eleven contends that the lower Court erred in law and that this occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice in relying on the evidence of the PW3. The said ground is hinged on the fact that the Appellant brought the deceased’s motorcycle to him (PW3) as sufficient corroboration of Appellant’s confessional statement. Ground twelve (12) alleges error of law on the part of the lower Court by failing to properly consider or apply independent corroborative evidence before affirming the conviction of the Appellant. The last ground, thirteen, contends error of law on the part of the lower Court when it concluded its finding by relying on the evidence of PW6 and Exhibit B and by ruling that it is not sacrosanct that death must be proved by medical evidence.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

A brief summary of the facts in this appeal indicate that the Appellant was charged with two count offence of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code and Armed Robbery pursuant to Section 2 (1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

3

On or about 4th February 2011, the Appellant herein, a member of the Moore Village Vigilante Group in Baruten Local Government Area of Kwara State, took a ride on the Bajaj Motorcycle of one Mohammed Danlami, now deceased. The Appellant had access to the deceased motorcycle having earlier killed him before taking his motorcycle, which he (the Appellant) rode to Yunusa Jimoh (the PW.3) at his Gwaria Village in Kaiama Local Government Area of Kwara State. The Appellant had requested the PW.3 to keep the motorcycle for him on the pre that same belonged to his friend who had travelled to the northern part of the country.

Members of the deceased Mohammed Danlami Okada Riders Association reported their missing colleague to the Police. A search party was deployed and the decomposing body of the deceased was recovered in the bush, with wounds. A medical practitioner was called to conduct a postmortem examination on the deceased and a report of the exercise was filed.

At the trial Court, the PW.6 stated that he saw both the deceased and the Appellant riding on the motorcycle.