Abdu Mohammed Vs The State (1991)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

On the 23rd of May, 1991, this appeal was heard and dismissed by this court. It was then adjourned to a future date when the reasons for that decision will be given.

I now proceed to give my reasons for dismissing this appeal. The appellant was charged before the Kano High Court with culpable homicide punishable by death under Section 221 (b) of the Penal Code.

After a trial which spanned two years and four months, he was convicted of the offence as charged and sentenced to death. On appeal to the Court of Appeal his conviction and sentence were affirmed five years after his conviction in the High Court.

It is from the decision of the Court of Appeal that he has appealed to this court. The only eye-witness of the assault that led to the death of the deceased, one Muktar Usman testified as PW1.

He saw the appellant chasing an old man at night with a stick in his hand with which he hit him very hard twice on the head and once near the ear. The old man (the deceased) then fell down and died on the spot.

Leaving the appellant in the custody of persons who ran to the scene, he reported the incident to a nearby police station from where a policeman came and arrested him. The medical evidence showed externally that the deceased had wound on the head and the cheek.

Internally, there were bruises and fracture of the skull and haemorrhage. These injuries might have been caused by use of a hard blunt object which is edged and which could have some small projectiles, and could not have been self- inflicted.

The appellant later made a statement to the police. In his defence the appellant denied any knowledge of the incident testified to by PW.

1 and the police investigator PW.3, and said he had not seen them until the day he testified in court.

He however admitted being a night guard at Kafar Kudu quarters, in Kano City. In his judgment, the learned trial Judge believed the evidence of PW.

1 and dismissed the contradiction in the evidence which defence counsel highlighted as immaterial. After considering the defence of provocation and defence of property and rejecting them, he held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant On appeal to the Court of Appeal, further issues relating to the need for corroboration and whether the treatment of the appellant’s statement to the police was correct were raised.

The Court of Appeal, after a careful consideration on the evidence led and the submissions of counsel dismissed the appeal, holding, inter alia, that(a) corroboration of the evidence of RW.1 is not required to convict the appellant(b)the alleged statements of the appellant to the police (Exhibits 2 and 2A) should have been rejected by the learned trial judge not only becausethey are suspect but also because they are inconsistent with the testimony of the appellant in court vide R v.

Ukpong (1961), 1 ANLR. 25; Oladejo v.

The State (1987) 7 SCNJ. 218; R.