Tajudeen Iliyasu V The State (2015)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

At the High Court of Kaduna State, the appellant in this appeal (as second accused person) and one Kabiru Muhammad (as first accused person) were charged with the offences of conspiracy under section 97 and Culpable Homicide punishable with death under 221 of the Penal Code. At the said High Court (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), they pleaded not guilty to the two counts.

In proof of its case, the Prosecution called eleven witnesses and tendered nine exhibits. On his part, the appellant (as second accused person) testified in his defence. He did not call any other witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court (Coram Othman J), in its judgement of July 18, 2011, first, discharged and acquitted both accused persons on the count of conspiracy; it, equally, discharged and acquitted the first accused person (Kabiru Mohammad) on the second count of Culpable Homicide punishable with death. The appellant was unlucky as the trial court found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him to death by hanging.

He was, naturally, aggrieved by the outcome of the criminal trial against him, hence, his appeal to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the lower court). In its judgement of March 22, 2013, the lower court, (as per the leading judgement of Abiru JCA), dismissed the appellant’s appeal. This further appeal is the appellant’s persistent quest for justice. He formulated two issues from his three grounds of appeal. They were framed thus:

(1) Whether the Court of Appeal was right when at dismissed the appellant’s appeal on the ground that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt to sustain the charge of Culpable Homicide against the appellant

(2) Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have sustained the conviction of the appellant on circumstantial evidence

On its part, the respondent formulated a lone issue couched in these terms:

Whether or not the lower court’s decision to affirm the trial court’s conviction of the appellant for culpable homicide was right having regard to the circumstantial evidence available and the appellant’s confessional statement

On our part, we are enamoured of the respondent’s sole issue. It is not only appealing due to its concision, it is, actually, more pungent apropos the appellant’s complaint in his three grounds of appeal. We shall, therefore, adopt this sole issue in the determination of this appeal.

For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the issue for the determination of this appeal is:

Whether or not the lower court’s decision to affirm the trial court’s conviction of the appellant for culpable homicide was right having regard to the circumstantial evidence available and the appellant’s confessional statement

ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

At the hearing of this appeal on December 4, 2014, J. M. M. Majiyagbe for the appellant, with C. C. Okonkwo, adopted the appellant’s brief of argument filed on October 14, 2013, although deemed, properly and served on February 26, 2014. Counsel contended that exhibits F1, F2 and G, the appellant confessional statements, were fraught with many irregularities. Citing page 123 of the record, he pointed out that the appellant’s evidence was consistent with his denial and retraction of the exhibits. He noted that the prosecution did not cross examine him on these facts and, in his view, must be deemed to have admitted their truth. He cited the Court of Appeal decision in FBN PLC v. Onkuga (2005) 16 NWLR (pt 950) 120 and this court’s decisions in Oforlete v State (2000) 12 NWLR (pt 681) 415, 436; Abadom v. State (1997) I NWLR (pt 479) 1, 20. He maintained that the prosecution failed to cross examine the appellant on his evidence that he did not commit the offence.