Muhammed Umar V. The State (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TUNDE O. AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is the judgment in respect of the appeal read on 11/6/2014 by the appellant accused in suit No. KB/HC/17C/2013, Mohammed Umar v. The State. Judgment was delivered on 11/4/2014 wherein Hon. Ibrahim B. Mairiga Judge of Kebbi State High Court found the accused guilty of the charge against him and convicted him as follows:-

“After careful consideration of the entire evidence before me, I am left with no doubt that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. And the accused person has been proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221(b) of the Penal Code.

Based on the evidence of the prosecution witness particularly PW1, 2 and 3 and the exhibits produced before me, I am satisfied that the accused person Mohammed Umar is responsible for the death of Abubakar Andere. I therefore find you Mohammed Umar guilty as charged and convict you of the culpable homicide of Abubakar Andere punishable under Section 221(b) of the Penal Code.”

The charge against the accused/appellant read thus:

“That you, Mohammed Umar “M” on or about the 15th day of October 2012 at about 16:30hrs, behind Oando filling station, Bye-Pass road, Birnin Kebbi Local Government Area within the jurisdiction of the Kebbi State High Court of Justice did commit the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death in that you used knife to stab on Abubakar Andere A. K. A. Giraje “M” on his right shoulder which caused his death and you knew or had reason to know that death will be probable and not only a likely consequence of your act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 221(b) of the Penal Code”.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below filed Notice of Appeal containing 5 grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal (shorn of the particulars) read as follows:-

“GROUND ONE

The decision of the Court below is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at trial.

GROUND TWO

The court below erred in law when it placed reliance on exhibits 2 and 2A respectively in convicting and sentencing the appellant to death for the offence contrary to Section 221(b) of the Penal Code notwithstanding the manifest discrepancies in the name of person who signed the same and these has occasioned the miscarriage of justice.

GROUND THREE

The court below erred in law when it held that the testimony of PW1 corroborated the confession of the appellant Exhibits 2 and 2A and used same in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221(b) of the Penal Code Law and this has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.