Whether Failure to Tender the Weapons Used in the Commission of a Crime Will Be Fatal to the Case of the Prosecution

CASE TITLE: SHU’AIBU v. STATE (2025) LPELR-81030(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE:  11TH APRIL, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, 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.

The Appellant was arraigned with two other defendants on three counts, to wit: Conspiracy, Armed Robbery and Culpable Homicide punishable with death, contrary to Sections 97, 221, and 298 of the Penal Code Law, Cap P3, Laws of Jigawa State 2012, respectively.

​The case presented by the Respondent (as the prosecution) at the trial Court against the Appellant and the two other defendants was that the appellant, along with others (that is, the 2nd and 3rd defendants at the trial), armed with sticks, went to the house of Mai Ungwar Idi – the deceased—at Malamawa Gidan Maza Garki, Jigawa State, and attacked him and his wife by beating them mercilessly with sticks and dropping nylon fireballs on the body of the deceased, after which they made away with their cell phones and a motorcycle. Due to the severe injury sustained by the deceased on his body as a result of the effect of the balls of fire from the nylon, he was subsequently rushed to Gumel Hospital, after which he was referred to Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, where he was pronounced dead and buried immediately according to Islamic rites. On the night of the robbery, the Appellant and his gang were sighted running away with the said motorcycle stolen from the deceased, and they were chased. Luck, however, ran out on the Appellant and the others when they were apprehended by PW2 and his group near the Appellant’s house, and they were handed over with the stolen motorcycle to the Police for investigation and prosecution.

In proving the case against the Appellant, the Respondent called two witnesses: Tabawa Mallam Idi (PW1), the wife of the deceased, while Dayabu Abu Danzomo gave evidence as PW2. The Appellant testified for himself as DW1 and his testimony is to the effect that on the said date when the offence was committed, he was on his farm doing some work. That while he was there, he received a call from the 3rd defendant that he had visitors at home who were misbehaving, as a result of which he reported the same to the police on the phone while he headed to his house to go and see them, and on the arrival of the police, they all went to the police station. When they got to the police station, he was, however, confronted with an allegation of conspiracy, armed robbery, and culpable homicide, which he denied, but he was nevertheless taken to the state headquarters of the police in Dutse, Jigawa State, where he and other co-accused were tortured with a view to obtaining a confessional statement from them, but they resisted. His defence essentially was an outright denial of the charge leveled against him. At the end, the trial Court convicted the Appellant on all charges.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the trial Court for the offences of Conspiracy, Armed Robbery and Culpable Homicide punishable with death.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issue formulated by the Appellant, viz;

“Whether there was sufficient evidence available on record to warrant the affirmation of the judgment of the trial Court by the Court below.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Instances where the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact(s) by Lower Courts
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF ROBBERY/ARMED ROBBERY: Ingredients that must exist to prove the offence of armed robbery
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH: Ingredient(s) that must be proved to establish the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE: Whether a person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: When the offence of conspiracy will be said to be complete; how it can be inferred
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF: Burden and standard of proof in criminal cases
• EVIDENCE- HEARSAY EVIDENCE: When evidence of a witness will/will not amount to hearsay evidence
• EVIDENCE- TENDERING OF WEAPON OF CRIME: Whether failure to tender the weapons used in the commission of a crime will be fatal to the case of the prosecution
• EVIDENCE- CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND DIRECT EVIDENCE: Distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence
• EVIDENCE- PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT: Whether proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof beyond all shadow of doubt; how same is attained
• EVIDENCE- CALLING OF WITNESS(ES): Discretion of the prosecution in calling witnesses; who is a vital witness and effect of failure to call a vital and or material witness
• EVIDENCE- IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE: Guiding principles for proper identification
• EVIDENCE- DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION: Applicability of the doctrine of recent possession
• EVIDENCE- MEDICAL EVIDENCE: Circumstance where medical evidence would not be needed

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol