Mati Musa V. The State (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

By a charge dated 5th July, 2006, the appellant was arraigned by the respondent before the Katsina State High Court, the trial Court, sitting at Dutsin Ma, for the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code. He had caused the death of one Salihu Yusuf on the 3rd day of May 2004 by hitting him with a stick on his head. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Six witnesses testified for the respondent through whom four exhibits were tendered and admitted in evidence. The appellant testified for himself. He called no other witness in his defence.

At the end of trial, the trial Court found the appellant guilty as charged and convicted him accordingly in its judgment dated 5th December, 2012.

Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower Court, vide a notice filed on the 14th November, 2013 containing five grounds. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court set aside appellant’s conviction under Section 221 of the Penal Code and substituted it with one

1

under Section 224 of the same code for culpable homicide not punishable with death and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment.

Still dissatisfied, the appellant has further appealed to this Court on a notice dated 18th September, 2014 containing three grounds. He seeks that his conviction and sentence by the lower Court be set-aside.

In his brief settled by Gideon Musa Kuttu Esq of counsel, the appellant has distilled a single issue for the determination of his appeal. The issue reads: –

“Whether by (sic) the available evidence on the records, it (sic) can justifiably sustain a conviction of the Appellant on the substituted charge of Culpable Homicide not punishable with death under Section 224 of the Penal Code.”

At page 3 of its brief, settled by Addul-rahman Umar Esq., chief state counsel Katsina State Ministry of Justice, the respondent has adopted the foregoing issue formulated by the appellant as calling for resolution in the determination of the appeal.

On the lone issue, learned appellant’s counsel contends that the respondent, who has not discharged the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant

2

that caused the death of Salisu Yusuf, is not even entitled to the lower Court’s verdict substituting appellant’s conviction under Section 224 of the Penal Code with the trial Court’s conviction under Section 221 of the same code for homicide punishable with death. Exhibits 2A, 2B, photographs of the deceased’s corpse and Exhibit 3, the medical report on the fact of the death of Salisu Yusuf and its cause, it is argued are all inadmissible. By virtue of Sections 68 and 83 of the Evidence Act 2011, the three exhibits being the opinion of expert witnesses, it is contended, must be tendered through their makers except where their presence is shown to be impracticable and/or inexpedient. The exhibits are inadmissible having been tendered not through their makers and without any foundation for so doing.