The State V. Sheevo Shontu (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Taraba State sitting at Jalingo delivered on 31st January, 2012, wherein the learned trial Judge discharged and acquitted the Respondent of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 (b) of the Penal Code.

At the trial Court, the Respondent was arraigned for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 (b) of the Penal Code. The charge read as follows:

“That you SHEEVO SHONTO, on or about the 2nd day of June, 2010 at a maize farm near Mararaba Kunini, Lau Local Government Area of Taraba State within the Jalingo Judicial division committed culpable homicide punishable with death to wit: stabbing UMARU AHMED a.k.a. MASHO on his left leg with a knife with the knowledge that death would be the probable consequence of your act and he died as a result of the injury inflicted by you.”

As is manifest from page 18 of the printed Record of Appeal, the charge was read out to the Respondent on 03-02-11. He pleaded not guilty to the charge before Adi, J. By the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the Respondent raised the defences of both sudden fight and self-defence.

In the reserved Judgment handed down by the learned trial Judge on 31st January, 2012, he found that the Appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on it by law to prove the charge against the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore entered a verdict of discharge and acquittal in favour of the Respondent.

The Appellant, feeling unhappy with the stance of the learned trial Judge, has ex debito justitiae, appealed to this Court. His Notice of Appeal, filed on 05-03-13 was accompanied by six (6) Grounds of Appeal.

On 19-11-13, when the Appeal was heard by this Court, the learned DPP for the Appellant, Mr. A.Y. Shitta, adopted and relied on the arguments canvassed in the Appellant’s Brief of argument filed on the 25-07-12 and urged that the Appeal be allowed. At pages 5-6 of the Appellant’s Brief of argument, four (4) issues are distilled from his six (6) Grounds of Appeal.

In like vein, on the same date, Mr. Tyonongu, learned Counsel for the Respondent, adopted and relied on the arguments canvassed in the Respondent’s Brief of argument filed on 22-08-12 as the Respondent’s arguments in this Appeal. He urged that the Appeal be dismissed. In a concise manner, three (3) issues were decoded for a due determination of the Appeal at page 3 of the said Brief.

I will state briefly the facts that are germane to the resolution of this Appeal. On 02-06-10, at a maize farm near Mararaba Kunini in Lau Local Government Area of Taraba State, one Umaru Ahmed, a.k.a. Masho, was out grazing his cattle on the farm of the Respondent. The Respondent, upon sighting Umaru on his farm, approached him agitatedly. With the aid of a stick, he began to drive the cattle out of his farm and an argument ensued, at which point Umaru, the deceased, pulled out a knife. The Respondent used the stick to strike the knife out of the deceased’s hand and it fell to the ground.

Both of them struggled to get control of the knife which had fallen to the ground. In the course of the struggle, the Respondent stabbed Umaru on his left thigh, while he also received a stab wound on his arm. Umaru, then still alive, was rushed to the Federal Medical Center, Jalingo, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. While Umaru was being taken to hospital, the Respondent reported the incident at the nearest Police station at Mararaba Kunini in Lau Local Government Area of Taraba State. The Respondent was promptly arrested and subsequently arraigned before the High Court on a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 (b) of the Penal Code.

He pleaded not guilty. In a bid to establish the charge at the trial, the Appellant adduced evidence through five (5) witnesses and tendered two exhibits, while the Respondent testified in his defence and called one witness. The Medical Report of the Pathologist and the extra judicial statement of the Respondent to the Police are Exhibits 1 and 2 before the trial Court.

In their respective Briefs of argument, the Appellant formulated four (4) issues while the Respondent defined three (3) issues for determination. After a careful perusal of the facts of this Appeal as disclosed in the printed Record, in conjunction with the six (6) Grounds of Appeal, I adopt the issues as defined by the Respondent, with a little modification, in resolving this Appeal: