Umaru Sani V. The State (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Kaduna State High Court No. 4 delivered on 24th February, 2009 by Gideon Isa Kurada J.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant on or about the 12th day of August, 2002 at Adebo Village in Birnin Gwari stabbed one Ibrahim Yusuf with sharp knife on his neck, who died instantly.

On the 5th day of May, 2005, the appellant was charged for the offence of culpable Homicide punishable with death.

At the trial, the prosecution (hereinafter called the respondent) called 4 witnesses and tendered 4 exhibits in its bid to establish its case against the appellant, on the other hand, the appellant testified for himself and tendered no exhibit.

At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was found guilty and accordingly sentenced to death by hanging.

Aggrieved bythe said decision, the appellant appealed to this Court through a notice of appeal.

Briefs of argument were in accordance with the relevant rules of this Court duly filed and exchanged and at the hearing of this appeal, the parties duly adopted and relied on the arguments and submissions contained in their respective briefs of argument.

In the appellant’s brief of argument, the following issues for determination were raised:

“(i). WHETHER the learned trial judge was right to have convicted the appellant for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death without the respondent having proved the elements of the offence. (GROUND TWO)

(ii). WHETHER the learned trial judge was right to have convicted the appellant without affording him the option of further cross-examining the Pw3 and Pw4 personally or through a counsel, (GROUND ONE)

(iii). WHETHER the learned trial judge was right to have convicted the appellant without properly considering the defences available to him (GROUNDS 3 AND 4)

(iv). WHETHER the decision of the trial Court is supportable and warranted, having regards to the totality of evidence before it. (GROUNDS 6 AND 7)”.

On the other hand, the respondent in its brief of argument formulated the following issues for determination to wit: