Mande Ali Vs The State (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC

The appellant was convicted by Hassan, J., in the Sokoto High Court on 29th September, 1971, of culpable homicide punishable with death and was sentenced to death.

The case for the prosecution was that the accused, Mande Ali, attacked Umaru Maude (the deceased) with a sword between Kotorkoshi and Wazuji villages in Kotorkoshi District in the North Western State some time in October, 1970, and that he “caused the death of the said Umaru Maude by severing his hand and left shoulder with a sword”.

The facts relied upon by the prosecution centered around the testimony of Ai Mutti (2nd P.W) who is the mother of the deceased. This witness testified that, on the day of the incident, Umaru Maude was sent to Kuzuli village to inform his elder sister that his younger sister had just had a baby. Umaru did not return as expected. Later, the 2nd P. W heard some children shouting and, as a result, she ran to the house of the accused. She found the accused standing outside. The parents of the accused one of whom (Aliyu Wuzogi) testified as P.W.3. were also there. The 2nd P.W then described what she did as follows:-

“I asked the accused that I have heard that you killed Umaru. The accused replied ‘yes. 1 have killed Umaru na’. I asked the accused three times as to whether he fought. The accused did not answer me. I then left. I then returned to my house. When I returned, 1 saw PW.l”

Under cross-examination, the witness confirmed her testimony-in-chief as follows:-

“I do not know the cause of Umaru’s death, but the accused confessed to me that he killed Umaru. I saw the father, mother, and the accused in the house on that day. I do not know whether the accused and Umaru were on bad terms. The accused told me that he killed Umaru.”

Abu Maude (1st P.W) the father of the deceased testified that some time after the deceased had gone to deliver the message to his elder sister, he (1st P.W) heard the elder sister of the accused crying. As a result, he decided to go to Kotorkoshi village and left for the village alone. On the way he saw his son Umaru in a pool of blood. Umaru, according to the 1st P.W, had been slashed on the left shoulder and also on the right hand. The cut on the left shoulder was very deep and almost severed the shoulder from the rest of the body. He also noticed that four of Umaru’s fingers “had been separated from the hand”, Umaru was, however, still alive. The 1st P.W then described what he did when he first saw his son as follows:-

“I spoke to the deceased Umaru when I first saw him lying down. I asked Umaru what caused the slashes on his body. Umaru replied that he did not know the cause. Umaru said nothing else.”

Although the 1st P.W admitted knowing the accused and also that they both lived in the same town he said that he did not know why the accused was in court. He also said he did not know who caused the death of his son.

Aliyu Wuzoji (P.W.5) the father of the accused and one of those whom Ai Muti (2nd P.W) said was present when the accused admitted to her that he was the one who had attacked the deceased, also testified for the prosecution. He was, however, not questioned by both the prosecution and the defence about the admission alleged to have been made in his presence by the accused to the 2nd P.W.

The only other witness who testified for the prosecution is P.C. Samari Babbada (5th P.W), the policemen who arrested the accused. He stated that after his arrest he recovered a sword from the accused at the police station but that there was no blood stains on the sword when he took it from him. As a result, the witness did nothing with the sword. The written statement allegedly made by the accused was rejected by the learned trial Judge on PAGE| the ground that he was not satisfied that it was made voluntarily. Under cross-examination, Babbada agreed that it was usual for shepherds in the area to go about with swords when they were looking after their flock. The sword was not tendered in evidence.

The doctor who performed the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased was not available to testify for the prosecution. His report (Ex. ‘A’) was, however, admitted in evidence by the learned trial Judge. He had the power to admit it by virtue of the provisions of Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The accused did not testify in his defence, He based his defence mainly on the evidence adduced by the prosecution.