Rabi Amadi V. The State (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower Court, delivered on the 20th August 2014, setting aside appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 221 of the Penal Code Law of Katsina State by the Katsina State High Court, the trial Court, and substituting same with a conviction under Section 222(6) of the Penal Code Law and sentencing the appellant to five years imprisonment.

The brief facts of the case is that the appellant was charged at the trial Court under Section 221 of the Penal Code for causing the death of her one day old baby by burying him alive.

To prove its case against the appellant, the respondent called three witnesses and tendered five exhibits.

The appellant testified in her own defence.

At the end of trial, the Court found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced her to death.

Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s judgment, she appealed to the lower Court on a notice of appeal dated 14th November 2013 containing five grounds.

1

At pages 140 – 141 of the record of appeal, the lower Court having held that the appellant lacked balanced mind arising from the depression associated with her giving birth to the baby, concluded its judgment as follows:-

“As has earlier been observed, the trial Court did not avail the Appellant or consider the defence under the provision of Section 222(6) which have a bearing on the case. The parties at the hearing of this appeal were given opportunity to address the Court on this issue. Therefore. it will be proper if this Court intervenes and substitutes the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant to one under Section 222 (6) of the Penal Code. See; GBAGBARIGHA VS. TORUEMI (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1350) PG. 289 at 310……

ln the instant case. from the circumstances of the case and the evidence before the trial Court conviction under Section 222 (6) should have been most proper.

A community reading of the provision of Sections 217 and 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code indicate to me that this Court has the power to substitute a conviction for a lesser offence than the offence charged whenever it is appropriate to do so.

2

The conviction in the judgment of Katsina State High Court Justice in Suit No: KTH/DM/3C/2011 delivered on 8th October, 2012 by l. B. Ahmed J. is hereby set aside and substituted with a conviction of the Appellant under Section 222 (6) of the Penal Code. The Appellant is accordingly sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with effect from the date of her arrest and detention in the year 2010.”