CASE TITLE: STATE v. AHMED (2020) LPELR-49497(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH JANUARY, 2020
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGE: OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.
FACTS
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja division delivered on 17th day of March 2016 wherein the appeal by the respondent was allowed and the judgment of the trial court, which convicted and sentenced the respondent, was set aside. The respondent was accordingly acquitted and discharged.
Ishiaku Abdulrazaq (PW 1), a barber was in his barbing shop sometime in December 2009 when the Respondent) came to his shop to barb his hair. The Respondent then informed PW 1 of an event that was disturbing his conscience. He then told PW 1 that he had fought with someone by the riverside of old water dam and that he had stabbed the boy with his knife. The Respondent) admitted that he knew the boy and PW 1 agreed to follow him to the family of the boy he stabbed, to take him to the hospital for treatment, but the Respondent refused and left the shop that day. However, sometime in January 2010, PW 1 was arrested by the members of the vigilante group in connection with an alleged stolen electricity generating set which was given to him to keep. In the course of his interrogation, he was asked if he knew the Respondent, who had told them that he had been one of those who killed the deceased. He later led the vigilante men to arrest the Respondent who later told them that he alone stabbed the deceased. The Respondent was arrested and handed over to the police who obtained his statement. PW2 was one Sergeant Usman Abubakar with Force No.20055, then serving at the State Criminal Investigation Department (SCID), Minna. He was detailed to obtain the Respondent’s statement which was tendered and admitted without objection and was marked Exhibit 1. PW3 was one Suleiman Badaru, the Secretary of Suleja Emirate Civil Security Corps. He was in their office when a case was reported of someone who was killed by the riverside. He had gone with the office camera and took pictures of the Corpse when he and some policemen visited the scene. The pictures he had taken were admitted without objection and were marked as Exhibits 2B and 2C respectively.
The respondent was arraigned in the High Court of Niger State, sitting at Suleja and he was charged with the offence of culpable homicide, contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code. Upon the reading of the charge, the Respondent pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. The prosecution called three (3) witnesses – PW1, PW2 and PW3 to prove its case, while the respondent testified in defence but called no other witness. The case of the respondent before the trial Court was a total denial of the knowledge of the deceased. He denied knowing the deceased or ever making any statement to the police on the death of the deceased. He however, admitted the signature on the statement to be his own. In a reserved judgment, the trial Court found the Respondent guilty as charged. He was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.
Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal upon three grounds of appeal. In its unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal found in favour of the respondent his appeal was allowed. He was accordingly acquitted and discharged. The State (Appellant) felt dissatisfied and appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Supreme Court determined the appeal on a sole issue as follows:
“Whether the prosecution proved its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.”
DECISION/HELD
In the final analysis, the Supreme Court held that the appeal succeeds and it was allowed. The judgment of the trial court which convicted the respondent and sentenced him to death was restored and the judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside. The respondent’s acquittal and discharge order were reversed.
RATIOS:
WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE SAYING….
~OTUNBA OTAYEMI
Introduction The legal profession has always been known for its high standards and unique demands,…
CASE TITLE: UNITY BANK PLC v. ALONGE (2024) LPELR-61898(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH APRIL, 2024 JUSTICES:…
CASE TITLE: ODIONYE v. FRN (2024) LPELR-62923(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW…
CASE TITLE: EFFIONG v. MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) UNLTD (2024) LPELR-62930(CA)JUDGMENT DATE: 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2024PRACTICE AREA:…
CASE TITLE: ONWUSOR v. STATE (2024) LPELR-63031(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2024 PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL…
By Femi Falana SAN Introduction Last week, President Bola Tinubu ordered the immediate termination of…
View Comments
This is a wonderful opportunity