Stephen Haruna V The Attorney-general Of The Federation (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER ODILI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision dated 6th October 2008 of the High Court of Justice, Abuja FCT, presided by Honourable Justice A. M. Taiba wherein the Accused/Appellant was convicted to death by hanging for the offence of culpable homicide contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code.

FACTS:

The prosecution testified that on 1st January 2004 a case of culpable homicide was referred from the Garki Division involving the accused (Stephen Haruna) now appellant. Prior to the aforementioned date, the accused Stephen Haruna was a security guard working with the Power Holding Company of Nigeria Plc formerly NEPA and was attached to late Barrister (Miss) E.N. Igwe) Assistant General Manager Legal, NEPA Headquarters, Abuja.

On getting to the scene, PW1 recovered Exhibits A – 1 tendered before the Lower Court viz a NEPA Uniform – grey in colour, one black trousers, a broken ceramic, Black batten, a multi coloured boxer pant, a flake, a bundle of N200 totaling, N22,600, a bundle of N100 notes totaling N10,000.00, ‘ a bundle of N100 notes, four pieces of N500 notes totaling N2,000.00, Head tie and white pant. Other exhibits were recorded and there were three statements of the accused person which are Exhibits M1-M3.

An autopsy was conducted by PW2, Dr. Said Mohammed Amin on 6th January 2004. There was no direct eye witness account of what happened to the deceased on 1st January 2004. Prosecution witnesses testified and the accused testified. After addresses the Lower court determined its judgment on 6th October 2008 and convicted the accused to death by hanging. Being dissatisfied with the decision, the accused filed a Notice of Appeal.

On the 30/11/09 date of hearing, Mr. Ologunorisa learned counsel for the Appellant adopted Appellant’s Brief filed on 30/4/09 and a Reply Brief filed on 24/6/09. Appellant formulated six (6) issues for determination which are as follows:-

1. Whether Exhibit O (Coroner’s Ordinance Report) issued by PW2 (Dr. Said M. Amin) in respect of the deceased. Miss Barrister EN. Igwe being conflicting, equivocal and therefore unreliable as evidenced by the material contradictions therein conclusively established the cause of death of the deceased.
2. Whether the trial judge correctly convicted the appellant relying on Exhibit M3 (3rd Statement of accused) to the exclusion of Exhibits M1 and M2 (1st and Td Statements of accused) when the evidence of the accused’s explanation as to what happened on the fateful day was not discredited by the prosecution in any form whatsoever.
3. Whether the conclusion of the trial judge would have been different if the judge had not improperly evaluated the evidence adduced before the trial court and made findings of fact not supported by evidence.
4. Whether the trial judge having misdirected himself by holding thus “A close scrutiny of the accused’s testimony would reveal that there are so many questions to be answered properly considered that the accused had offered a minimum of explanation.
5. Whether it is proper for the trial judge to rely on Exhibits A-F, G1-G4,I in coming to the conclusion that the appellant did cause the death of Barrister Miss EM Igwe relying on exhibits which lack probative value.
6. Whether it is proper for the trial judge to overlook the incongruous pieces of evidence in Exhibit M3 (3rd Statement of accused) and attach weight to Exhibits M3 in coming to the conclusion that the appellant did cause the death of Barrister Miss E. N. Igwe.

Mr. Rotimi Ojo, learned counsel for the Respondent adopted, Respondent’s Brief filed on 2/6/09. Mr. Ojo adopted the six issues framed by the Appellant.

The grounds of appeal at page 187 of the Record which are six in number are recast without their particulars below and they are:-

GROUND 1:

The learned trial judge of the High Court of Justice erred in law in holding that the Prosecution established the cause of death of Miss Barrister E.N. Igwe beyond reasonable doubt.

GROUND 2:

The learned trial Judge erred in law by convicting the appellant for culpable homicide the said matter being mainly based on Exhibit M3 admitting the crime to the exclusion of Exhibits M1 and M2 were not thoroughly examined there being no eye witness account of what transpired in the deceased’s house on the fateful day.

GROUND 3: