HAMZA v. STATE (2022)

HAMZA v. STATE

(2022)LCN/16778(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, July 18, 2022

CA/K/631A/C/2016

Before Our Lordships:

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

JIBRIN HAMZA APPELANT(S)

And

KANO STATE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO GROUND A CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

WHETHER OR NOT AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN CONTEST THE FACTS OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT AFTER DENYING MAKING THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

And in the case of Bala Vs Kano State (2022) LPELR – 57475 (CA), we discussed extensively, when Appellant can raise objection to tendering of confessional statement, as follows:
“The law is trite, that upon denying making the confessional statement (Exhibit A1-A2), the Appellant lacked the vires to contest the facts and content of the document, as to whether, or not it was properly recorded, signed and/or admitted. Having denied making the statement, Appellant had distanced himself from it (the document) and it should not therefore bother him what the Court does with it. But the Court is competent to look at it (the statement) and admit it, if relevant to the case, and where the Court finds cause to believe that Appellant made the statement, then that would defeat the entire pretentious defence. In the recent case of YAMUSA Vs THE STATE (2022) LPELR-57094 (CA), delivered on 18/3/2022, we said: “One who asserts that he did not make any confessional statement to the Police is therefore not contesting the voluntariness of the statement produced by the Prosecution as made by him, and so there cannot be any call for trial-within-trial on the status or voluntariness of the statement.” PER MBABA, J.C.A.

THE CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE FULFILLED BEFORE A CONVICTION FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH CAN BE ACHIEVED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Before a conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death can be achieved on circumstantial evidence, the fact of the death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt. Where circumstantial evidence points on different or many directions, a Court cannot convict an accused for the offence of murder or culpable homicide. See MAIGARI V. STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT 1220) 439 and OSUOHA V. STATE (2010)16 NWLR (PT. 1219) 364. For a conviction of an accused to be sustained, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Court to convict must have satisfied the following conditions:- (i) The evidence must irresistibly and unequivocally lead to the guilt of the accused. (ii) No other reasonable inference could be drawn from it. (iii) There must be no co-existing circumstances that could weaken the influence. All the above conditions must exist in any given case for a conviction of the accused to be sustained. See SHEHU V. STATE (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1195) 112 and MAMMAN V. STATE (2015) LPELR 25963.” Per LAMIDO, JCA
And in the case of Makana Dada Vs The State (2017) LPELR – 43468 (SC), the Supreme Court said:
“Direct evidence establishes a fact without making any inference to connect the evidence to the fact. Thus, direct evidence proves or disproves a fact directly. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires an inference to be made to establish a fact. “lnference” is “a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. Circumstantial evidence, however, does not point directly to a fact. In other words, an inference must be made, which would link the circumstantial evidence to the fact that the party using it, is trying to prove, which can make it a lot more powerful than direct evidence. See Lori & Anor V. The State (1980) NSCC (Vol. 12) 269, wherein this Court, per Nnamani, JSC, aptly observed as follows – Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is said to be evidence of surrounding circumstances, which by undesigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say it is circumstantial. But the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction – must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Prisoner, and no one else, is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt.” Per AUGIE, JSC. PER MBABA, J.C.A.

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of Kano State High Court in Charge No. K/96C/2014, delivered on 29/7/2016, wherein Appellant was convicted of offence of culpable homicide and sentenced to death by hanging, by Hon. Justice Nasiru Saminu.

At the lower Court, Appellant was charged along with other Accused persons for conspiracy to commit offence and for culpable homicide, as follows:
(1) That you Jibrin Hamza, Nasiru Abdullahi, Dauda Abdullahi and Anwalu Jaru, male, adult (now at large) on or about 8th February, 2012 at R/Zaki Quarters, within the jurisdiction of this Court agreed to do a (sic) illegal act and the same act was done in pursuance to the agreement. And you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 97 of the Penal Code Laws of Kano State, Cap 105, 1991.
(2) That you Jibrin Hamza, Nasiru Abdullahi, Dauda Abdullahi and Auwalu Jibrin, male, Adult (now at large) of Dorayi Quarters Gwale Local Government Area Kano State on or about 8th February, 2012 at R/Zaki Quarters with (sic) the Kano Judicial Division did commit culpable homicide punishable with death in that per cases (sic) the death of Jamilu Yusuf (the deceased by doing an act, to wit; stabbing him on the thigh with a knife with knowledge that his death would be the probable consequence of your act and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code (Cap 105) Laws of Kano State.

The charge was later amended and the names of the 3rd and 4th Accused persons struck out.

On arraignment the 1st and 2nd Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called 8 witnesses and tendered 8 Exhibits; the 1st and 2nd Accused persons testified on their defence and called on other witness. At the end of the trial and after considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, the trial Court struck out the Count of conspiracy against Appellant, but convicted him for culpable homicide and sentenced him, accordingly. The 2nd accused person was discharged and acquitted.

In respect of Appellant, the trial Court held:
“… It is in evidence by PW1, PII, (sic) PWIII and PWV that the deceased was stabbed on his thigh and bled profusely and died on his way to the hospital on the 5th February, 2013. It is settled law that: The offence of murder can be established by proof of either intention to kill or to cause grievous harm, if death result (sic). See Uyo Vs A.G. Bendel State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.17) 418. In Akpan Vs State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt.368) 347, the Supreme Court, per Adio JSC held that:
“Where a person attacked another person with a lethal (sic) and the other person died on the spot, it is not necessary to prove cause of death.”
Perhaps the 1st Accused have (sic) intended to cause only grievous bodily harm on the deceased by stabbed (sic) him on his thigh, however, since death results from the wound inflicted on the deceased on his way to the hospital, on the same date an intent to kill can readily be inferred… In the circumstance, I hold that the prosecution have (sic) proved the 3rd ingredient against the 1st Accused person beyond reasonable doubt.
Even though I have stated earlier in my judgment that it has been proved that the 1st Accused conspired with others to kill the deceased. However, in the absence of his co-conspirators he cannot be convicted for the offence of conspiracy, the law is that where co-conspirators are (sic) discharged or are at large, one single accused cannot be convicted for offence or offence of conspiracy alone… based on the evidence so for (sic) adduced by the prosecution against the accused, I find him guilty of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code…” (See Pages 185 – 186 of the Records of Appeal)

That is the judgment Appellant appealed against, being dissatisfied, as per the Notice of Appeal filed on 5/10/2016 (Pages 189 – 193 of the Records of Appeal), disclosing 4 grounds of appeal. Appellant filed Brief of arguments on 2/5/2018 and distilled two (2) Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether or not, from the evidence led by the prosecution, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence on the record forcibly suggesting that the Appellant murdered the deceased person (Grounds 1, 3 and 4).
(2) Whether the trial Court was not in grave fundamental error when it convicted the Appellant for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death in the face of manifest contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution? (Ground 2)

The Respondent filed brief on 14/7/2020, which was deemed duly filed on 1/12/2021. The Respondent adopted the two Issues distilled by the Appellant for the consideration of the appeal.

Arguing the appeal, on 21/6/2022, the Counsel for Appellant, Adebayo Adedeji, Esq., who settled the brief, on Issue 1, said the evidence led by the prosecution was not enough to sustain the conviction, pointing to the fact that Appellant was the one who stabbed the deceased to death. He said that the evidence, which the trial Court purportedly relied on did not point to the Appellant as the one who committed the offence. He relied on the case of Egbirika Vs State (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt.1398) 558 at 562 and Kalu Vs FRN (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt.1389) 179, Ozaki Vs State (1990) NWLR (Pt.124) 98 on the need to establish the guilt of Defendant beyond reasonable doubt. He also relied on Sections 131, 132 and 135 of the English case of Woolmington Vs DPP (1935) AC 462, Per Viscount Sankey.

Counsel also relied on the ratio of Tobi JSC in Akinbisade Vs State (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt.1007) 184 on the quality of circumstantial evidence that can lie a conviction, that:
“… for any circumstantial evidence to support the conviction of the offence charged, that evidence must be credible, cogent, consistent, and unequivocal and leads to a no conclusion other than the guilt of the person charged with the offence…”

That case also referred to other cases, Counsel also relied on Akpan Vs The State (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt.737) 745 and Adeniji Vs The State (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt.730) 375, Ijioffor Vs The State (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.718) 371, Adepetu Vs The State (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt.565) 185, to the effect that circumstantial evidence cannot be raised on speculation or suspicion, however strong, and it must always be narrowly construed and examined as to prevent being fabricated to cast suspicion on innocent persons – Ahmed Vs The State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.746) 622, Onyenankeya Vs The State (1964) 1 ALL NLR 151.

Counsel said that the fact that Appellant stated in his extra-judicial statement, that he was present at the scene where there was a fight, was not conclusive proof that Appellant was the one who stabbed the deceased to death, that the burden remained on the prosecution to prove, through credible evidence that it was not only the act of Appellant that caused the death, but also that it actually did. He relied on Nnajiofor Vs The People of Lagos State (2015) LPELR – 24666 (CA).

Counsel said that Aminu Yusuf, who was the complainant and vital witness, was not called to testify; that his (Aminu Yusuf’s) evidence would have helped to identify the persons he arrested in connection with the offence. He said none of the prosecution witnesses was at the scene of crime, or witnessed the commission of the offence and so their evidence were hear-say, worthless and unhelpful; that the said Aminu Yusuf had alleged that he apprehended Appellant at the scene of crime but was not called to give evidence.

Counsel urged us to invoke Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 against the prosecution, that it withheld credible evidence, which if produced would have been against the prosecution.

Counsel said that the trial Court had placed reliance on the confessional statement of Appellant, which Appellant had retracted; that there needed to be other pieces of evidence to justify placing reliance on the said extra-judicial statement of the Appellant. He said that there was nothing, outside the retracted confessional statement, pointing to the fact that Appellant committed the offence. He relied on Okon Macdonald Ita Vs The State (2017) LPELR – 42639 (CA).

Counsel argued that the veracity of the confessional statement of Appellant needed to be tested and relied on Lawal Vs The State (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt.1531) 69. He referred us to the evidence of Appellant at the trial denying the offence, and said that his evidence was not challenged. He urged us to resolve the issue for Appellant.

On issue 2, Counsel said the evidence of the prosecution witnesses had manifest contradictions, which should not warrant any conviction of Appellant. He said that PW2 told the Court that he was the one that took Appellant (sic) to the hospital while PW5 gave evidence to the effect that he was the one that led a team of Police to the scene and rushed the deceased to the hospital; that the prosecution tendered a matchet in evidence (Exhibit 6) instead of a Knife alleged to have been used to commit the crime. He said these contradictions created doubt in the case of the prosecution, which should have been resolved for the Appellant. He relied on Ibrahim Vs The State (1991) LPELR – 1404 (SC). He argued that the contradictions were fundamental and ought to have been resolved for the Appellant.

He urged us to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court.

The Respondent’s Counsel, Lawan D. Sulaiman Yakasai Esq., (Director Public Prosecution – Kano State) who settled the brief, on issue 1, referred us to the evidence of PW2 (Pages 19 – 22) who said that as they were trying to get a vehicle to take the victim of the attack (now deceased) to the hospital, Appellant was arrested and brought to the scene by a brother of the victim and he (Appellant) was holding a knife and had in his possession the mobile phone of the victim and the artificial teeth of the victim, that the evidence also revealed that the crowd was about to beat Appellant, to get him to name his accomplice but he stopped them; that Appellant mentioned the 2nd accused person. Counsel said the above evidence was not contradicted, nor challenged.

Counsel also referred to the evidence of PW4 (Pages 24 – 27 of the Records), who said that in the morning of the date of the incident, he saw the deceased, 2nd and 3rd accused quarrelling over a girl and carrying a knife, in front of one Maryam’s house, that they went to take the girl, Mama. He (PW4) pleaded with them to maintain peace and asked the girl to follow them, PW4 said that on the fateful day (5/2/2013) around the time of the incidence, the deceased gave him his credentials and he (PW4) gave the victim (deceased) his monies (he owed the victim) under his (PW4) care. Then it was not up to 30 minutes after he had given the money, that the victim (deceased) was stabbed to death.

Counsel said the evidence of PW1, PW2; Exhibit P3, P5, P1 and P4 pointed directly to no other person than the 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused, as the persons that killed the deceased. He argued that the circumstantial evidence was strong, cogent and compelling against the Appellant. He relied on Amala Vs The State (2004) 6 – 7 SC 105.

Counsel also referred us to the extra-judicial statement of the Appellant, where he (Appellant) admitted being present at the scene of alleged fight that led to the stabbing of the victim (deceased).

He urged us to resolve the issue against Appellant.

On issue 2, Counsel answered in the negative. He said that there was no material contradiction in the evidence led by the prosecution. He referred us to pages 20 and 30 of the Records, where the PW2 and PW5 testified, respectively, as follows:
PW2: “On reaching house, I was told to look for vehicle to convey Jamilu (deceased) to hospital that was bleeding.”
PW5: “… I led a team to the scene, we found the deceased unconscious seriously bleeding. Thereafter, I rushed him to Murtala Muhd Specialist Hospital…”

Counsel said the two pieces of the evidence above were not contradictory. He relied on the case of Nasamu Vs State (1979) 6 SC 153 to say that explanation is only required, where there is material contradiction in evidence, and there was none in this case. Counsel added that in all criminal trials, the defence must challenge all the evidence it wishes to dispute by cross-examination, as that is the only way to challenge evidence, admitted in trial, lawfully. He relied on Okosi Vs State (1989) 1 CLRN 29.

Counsel said that, from what was found on Appellant at the time he was arrested at the scene, that gave strong inference that Appellant attacked the deceased with a knife. He relied on Amala Vs The State (2004) on the place and effect of circumstantial evidence. He also referred to Oforlete Vs The State (2000) 7 SC (Pt.1) 80; (2000) FWLR (Pt.12) 2081 at 2102 on the effect of unchallenged, uncontradicted evidence.

Counsel urged us to resolve the issues against Appellant and to dismiss the appeal.

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES
I shall consider this appeal on the two issues donated by the Appellant and adopted by the Respondent and shall take them, together.

Did the prosecution establish the guilt of the Appellant by means of the circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial statement of Appellant which the trial Court relied on? And was there any material contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution.

A brief facts of this case shows that the deceased, Jamilu Yusuf, was stabbed on the thigh on 5th February, 2013 by assailants and he bled and died on the way to the hospital, where he was rushed for medical attention. Appellant and 3 other persons were arrested for the crime and Appellant was found with the artificial teeth and cell phone of the deceased, at the time of his arrest, soon after the attack on the deceased. Before the attack, that day, people had seen them (Accused persons) and the deceased, together. PW1 (Aisha Yusuf) deceased sister said she saw the late brother with three (3) persons at about 10.30pm on the 5/2/2013 and the persons were saying her brother (deceased) should be handicapped. She rushed back to the house to tell her other brother, Aminu; she could not recognize any of the three persons, because it was dark. But the brother, Aminu, was able to arrest the Appellant, after the deceased had been stabbed, as he (Aminu) chased the assailants and caught up with the Appellant.

PW2 (Abdullahi Yusuf) said he recognized the accused persons; that on 5/2/2013 when he was going home in the evening, he met the 2nd and 3rd accused in a shop near their (PW2’s) house, smoking cigarette. He asked his mother who the three persons he met, were, and the mom said they were Dauda (2nd Accused) and his friend. He was later called by the deceased, indicating some emergency, by the time he went to meet the deceased, he saw two people running and shouting ‘theft’ ‘thief’ against one, in front. On reaching the house, he was told to look for vehicle to take Jamilu (deceased) to the hospital, who was bleeding. While he was trying to get a vehicle, he saw his brother (Aminu) return with the Appellant, whom he arrested and he (Appellant) was holding a knife and also had in his possession the mobile phone of the deceased and his artificial teeth, the crowd was about to beat him (Appellant), but he (PW2) stopped them and rather asked Appellant to mention his accomplice and he said he was with Nasiru Abdullahi (2nd Accused) and Dauda Abdullahi (3rd Accused), who was among the crowd; that Appellant, at the point saw the 3rd Accused and pointed at him and he (3rd Accused) immediately took to his heels (ran away). He PW2 pursued the 3rd Accused, who ran to his house and closed the door behind him. He later heard of the death of Jamilu and they reported the matter to the Police and surrendered the arrested persons to the Police.

Other witnesses gave evidence in line with the above, but none of them actually witnessed the robbery/fight or stabbing of the deceased, and who did.

PW4, Lurwan Abdullahi, said that on that same date at about 8.30pm Jamilu (deceased) had come to meet him and had presented his credentials (WASC and NECO) and sought assistance to join the NDA; he (PW4) refunded the sum of N460,000.00 he owed to him (deceased) and he left; it was not up 30 minutes after that incident that he heard of the attack and killing of Jamilu! The Police had called PW4 for interrogation on finding that he was one of the contacts on the deceased phone, before his attack and death.

PW3 also said that earlier in the day (5/2/13) he saw 2nd and 3rd accused persons having a quarrel with Jamilu (deceased) over a girl (Mama) and he (PW3) tried to settle them.

The PW8, Inspector Musa Abdullahi (one of the IPO’s) had given evidence about the deceased nokia phone, recovered from the Appellant, but said that it was lost due to movement of exhibits as a result of bomb blast. (Page 44 of the Records) PW8 also tendered the statement made by Aminu Yusuf (brother of deceased, who arrested Appellant) to the Police and the same was admitted as Exhibit P8, without objection and it was disclosed that the said Aminu Yusuf was on military assignment outside Nigeria, and attempt to get him to give oral evidence proved abortive. (Page 43 of the Records). The knife was tendered as Exhibit P6 (Page 37 of the Records). The statements made by Appellant (1st Accused) and the 2nd Accused were tendered and admitted, without objection as Exhibits P4 and P4(a) (Hausa and English versions) and P5 and P5(a), respectively. See Pages 36 – 37 of the Records of Appeal. In the Exhibit P4 & P4(a), Appellant admitted complicity in the fight or attack by his group (including 3rd Accused) which led to the stabbing of the said Jamilu Yusuf (deceased) and to his death. (See Pages 130 – 131 of the Records).
Appellant said among other things:
“… I gave him the sum of N1000.00 (one thousand naira) … he was at the said Jamilu Yusuf resident. I heard him call one person, the said person, Nasiru … we came together for the first time, and the said Nairu call one Dauda Abdullahi in Yamakawa Qtrs Kano… as soon as he came he engaged himself fighting with the said Jamilu Yusuf and between Nasiru… stabbed the said Jamilu Yusuf as a result he started bleeding and failed down, unconscious and I started run away. Therefore, a neighbour came in… started shouting at me “thief, thief.” I was later apprehended and beaten by the mob within the area. While the said Nasiru and one other person which I cannot remember his name as a resulted… I sustained minor injury around my…. and before the said Nasiru fought the said Jamilu Yusuf in he entered into… Dauda Abdullahi in House, but I cannot remember whether his the one that he… or another person. However where (sic) later took to MMSH Kano where the said Jamilu Yusuf later dead (sic) and I was treated and discharged and the said Nasiru is in possession of knafe (sic). That is what happened I myself did not… him or act…”

Appellant, testifying at the trial, admitted contact with the other accused persons and the late Jamilu Yusuf, on 5/2/2013, and added:
“When I got to the same place, I met the 2nd accused I saw a crowd with weapons like heavy sticks. I asked to inquire what was happening somebody told me that there was fight between Yandaba, one called Aminu holding heavy stick pointing at me and said this one is among them. I don’t know the relationship between the said Aminu and the deceased. Aminu and others descended on me with their heavy sticks beating me. I run (sic) the crowd pursued me and shouting theft, theft I wanted to escape into a football field at Dorayi Babba the crowd were throwing stone at me… I fell down, the said Aminu came and met me on the ground and the crowd came and were asking what did I steal, they were all beating me with heavy sticks. They dragged me to the initial place where I met the 2nd Accused. As soon as we got to place the said Aminu said he is among them, pointing at me. The crowd descended on me with beating to the point of unconsciousness. I regain my consciousness at the Hospital bed with stitches on my head a dislocation on my waist and was vomiting blood from there the Police took me back to the R/Zaki Police Station…” See Pages 49 – 50 of the Records.

The above appears to have established some curious link between the Appellant and the assailants, who robbed and stabbed Jamilu Yusuf, resulting in his death, the same day he was attacked. The fact that the cell phone and artificial teeth of the said Jamilu Yusuf were found in possession of Appellant at the time of his arrest in my view became a strong circumstantial evidence to link him with the robbery and attack of the deceased, which Appellant could not explain away.

In his evidence in Court, he told the Court that he did not make any statement at the State CID; that he was forced, tortured and forced to sign on a paper they wrote. (See Page 52 of the Records of Appeal).

Appellant did not, however, object to the tendering of his confessional (extra-judicial) statement, at the trial, as the same was admitted without any complaint by Appellant and/or his Counsel. (See Pages 37 – 38 of the Records of Appeal).

The law is trite, that Appellant’s confessional statement, which was not opposed at the point of admission, as exhibit, cannot be rejected or opposed, on appeal, and that the trial Court is entitled to rely on the same, to found conviction.

It is also the law that a confessional statement, alone, is even sufficient to lie conviction, where the same is adjudged, credible and voluntarily made by the Appellant. Of course, confessional statement is adjudged and remains the best evidence, being an admission of quilt by the Accused person (Appellant), himself. See the case of Mohammed Vs The State (2020) LPELR – 52451 (SC), where it was held:
“The best evidence that an accused person committed an offence is his confessional statement which would state clearly that he committed the crime for which he is charged. This is conclusive evidence that the accused person committed the offence, provided that the evidence was not beaten out of him. That is to say the confessional statement must have been voluntary made. “I did it” concludes the case. The next best evidence is the testimony of an eyewitness, provided it is true. “I saw you committing the offence.” It is the duty of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses. There is no rule of law or practice which says that a Court should hesitate in convicting upon the evidence of an eyewitness in a case where there is no suggestion that the witness is an accomplice, if the Court is satisfied with the evidence given.” Per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
In the case of Hussein Vs The State (2022) LPELR – 57021 CA, we held:
Only recently, we had course to restate the law in the case Kabiru Bala v The State (2022) LPELR-56737, on confessional statement as the best evidence to work with and to convict on, once the statement is adjudged credible and made voluntarily by the accused person. We held, thus: “By law, a confessional statement is enough evidence, and, in fact the best evidence, to establish commission of offence, coming from the accused person himself where the confession is adjudged voluntarily made. See the case of Uhara Vs The State (2021) LPELR – 55512 (CA): “We have held several times that a confessional statement alone is a conclusive and sufficient evidence to establish conviction, and, in fact, the best evidence of the commission of the offence, coming directly from the accused person himself, and closing every door of defence against him, except where the issue/defence of provocation can be invoked. See FRN Vs Iweka (2011) LPELR – 9350 SC, where it was held that confessional statement is the best evidence of proof of crime and can be accepted as satisfactory evidence, upon which alone the accused can be convicted. See also Ogoala Vs The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 509 at 534.”

And in the case of Bala Vs Kano State (2022) LPELR – 57475 (CA), we discussed extensively, when Appellant can raise objection to tendering of confessional statement, as follows:
“The law is trite, that upon denying making the confessional statement (Exhibit A1-A2), the Appellant lacked the vires to contest the facts and content of the document, as to whether, or not it was properly recorded, signed and/or admitted. Having denied making the statement, Appellant had distanced himself from it (the document) and it should not therefore bother him what the Court does with it. But the Court is competent to look at it (the statement) and admit it, if relevant to the case, and where the Court finds cause to believe that Appellant made the statement, then that would defeat the entire pretentious defence. In the recent case of YAMUSA Vs THE STATE (2022) LPELR-57094 (CA), delivered on 18/3/2022, we said: “One who asserts that he did not make any confessional statement to the Police is therefore not contesting the voluntariness of the statement produced by the Prosecution as made by him, and so there cannot be any call for trial-within-trial on the status or voluntariness of the statement.” See also Akwuobi Vs The State (2016) LPELR-41389 (SC), where it was held: “In this instant appeal, there is a confessional statement made by the appellant voluntarily which was tendered and admitted in evidence at the trial and marked Exhibit 4. Although the appellant denied making such statement or signing same, the trial Court rightfully in my view, did not bother to conduct a trial within trial since the appellant did not say that he made it under duress, torture, promise or any influence. This is because mere denial of making or signing a confessional statement by accused persons is not sufficient ground on which to reject its admissibility in evidence when properly tendered. See Okwesi vs. State (1995) NWLR 119; Igago vs. The State (1999) 14 NWLR (pt.637)1. Also where an accused person merely disputes the correctness of a confessional statement or states that he made no statement at all, it is not necessary to conduct a trial within trial. See Madejemesi v The State (2001) 5 SCNJ 59.” Per SANUSI, JSC See also Ofordike Vs The State (2019) LPELR-46411(SC), where my Lord Okoro JSC said: “The learned counsel for the Respondent made it clear that denial of making a confessional statement is not synonymous with alleging that it was involuntarily made which I agree totally. This much was held by the Court below in its judgment as found on page 139 of the record as follows:- “In this appeal under consideration, it is clear on record that the appellant did not through his counsel and during the trial, particularly at the point when the prosecution applied to tender the said confessional statement object to its admissibility on the grounds that it was involuntarily made or obtained from him with coercion or as a result of threat to his life or promise of any advantage. In view of the foregoing, a trial within trial is unnecessary and the trial Court was right in its judgment.” I agree entirely with the position taken by the Court below because, as I have stated above, a trial within trial is necessary where the voluntariness of the making of a confessional statement by an accused person is in issue or raised by an accused person or his counsel. Where an accused person admits making the statement but contends or asserts that he did not make it voluntarily, but under duress or some other alleged influence, then a trial with trial will be conducted. Where however as in this case, the objection to the admissibility in accused confessional statement is based on the grounds that it was not read over to him and that he did not make it, the statement is treated as a voluntary statement and is admissible without the Court holding a trial within trial which is necessary only where the issue of involuntariness is raised. See Onyenye v The State (2012) 15 NWLR (pt 1324) 586 at 619 paragraphs A-C where this Court set out the circumstances and effect of confessional statements obtained by duress and those merely retracted as follows:- 1. Where the accused has clearly expressed his ordeal in the process of obtaining the statement accredited to him in effect that it was obtained by force, tricks or undue influence or any non-recognizable legal ways, there would be need for a trial within trial. 2. Where the accused retracted his confessional statement on the ground that it was not read to him before he signed it or that he never made it at all, the requirement of a trial within trial is not applicable…” As stated earlier in the case of Yamusa Vs The State (supra): “Where an accused person denies making a confessional statement at all to the Police, that amounts to a blind plunge into the dark, as is an ill-advised self-delusion, as he cannot therefore contest the content of the Statement Produced and Credited to him. And where the said statement contains the personal profile of the accused person, which could only (sic) have been gotten from him, and/or one in possession of such details, the denial of making the Statement becomes, silly! The law is trite that even where a Confessional Statement is denied or retracted at the trial, the Court can still use it to found conviction where the same is plausible…” See also GURUMA Vs The State: CA/K/544B/C/2019 of 18/3/2022 and Okon Vs The State (2014) LPELR- 24018 CA, where this Court held: “Of course, even where the accused person retracts his earlier confessional statement at the trial, that does not prevent the Court from using it to convict the Accused person, if the Court finds the statement relevant and credible, after passing it through the acceptability test, as stated in the case of Haruna vs A.G. Fed. (2012) 2009 LRCN 70: “A Court can convict on the retracted confessional statement of an accused person. But before this is properly done, the trial Judge should evaluate the confession and the testimony of the accused person and all the evidence available. These entail the trial Judge examining the new version of events presented by the accused person which is different from his retracted confession and the Judge asking himself the following questions: a. Is there anything outside the confession to show it is true? b. Is it corroborated? c. Are the relevant statements made in it, of facts true as far as they can be tested? d. Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence? e. Is the confession possible? f. Is the confession consistent with the other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved?” In the case of Salahudeen vs The State (2013) LPELR-21851 (CA) this Court reiterated: “It has been stated, several times, that a confessional statement is the best and strongest evidence of guilt, as by it the Accused person surrenders himself and closes every door of defence against himself.” See Yusuf vs The State (2012) LPELR-7878 (CA), Akpa vs State (2008) ALL FWLR (pt. 420) 644.” I therefore hold that Appellant’s denial of making any confessional statement, in this case, was unwise, and that completely demolished any perceivable ground or plank on which Appellant could challenge the competence or credibility of the Statement, produced by the Prosecution as having been made by the Appellant.”

Apart from the confessional statement, Appellant was arrested with the cell phone and artificial teeth of the deceased in his possession. That formed a strong, cogent and compelling circumstantial evidence to pin down Appellant to the crime, as he could not explain away the circumstances of being in possession of the deceased property, soon after he was robbed and attacked. See the case of Orji Vs The State (2008) LPELR – 2767 (SC):
“The position of the law on circumstantial evidence is that before it can ground a conviction the evidence must be strong, cogent and point irresistibly to the guilt of an accused person. See Anekwe v. State (supra) and Aigbadion v. State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt.666) page 686.” Per MUKHTAR, JSC
In Lori & Anor Vs State (1980) LPELR – 1794 (SC), it was held:
“But the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction in a criminal trial, especially murder, must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the prisoner and no one else is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. Dealing with the nature of circumstantial evidence in a case from the Supreme Court of the former British Guyana, Tepper v. queen (1952) AC 480 at 489 PC. Lord Normand said:- “Circumstantial evidence may sometimes be conclusive, but it must always be narrowly examined, if only because evidence of this kind may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another. Joseph commanded the steward of his house, “put my cup, the silver cup, in the sacks’ mouth of the youngest”, and when the cup was found there, Benjamin’s brethren too hastily assumed that he must have stolen it. It is also necessary before drawing the inference of the accused’s guilt from circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference.” Per NNAMANI, JSC
See also the recent case of Musa Vs The State (2022) LPELR – 57024 CA:
Before a conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death can be achieved on circumstantial evidence, the fact of the death should be proved by such circumstances as render the commission of the crime certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt. Where circumstantial evidence points on different or many directions, a Court cannot convict an accused for the offence of murder or culpable homicide. See MAIGARI V. STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT 1220) 439 and OSUOHA V. STATE (2010)16 NWLR (PT. 1219) 364. For a conviction of an accused to be sustained, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Court to convict must have satisfied the following conditions:- (i) The evidence must irresistibly and unequivocally lead to the guilt of the accused. (ii) No other reasonable inference could be drawn from it. (iii) There must be no co-existing circumstances that could weaken the influence. All the above conditions must exist in any given case for a conviction of the accused to be sustained. See SHEHU V. STATE (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1195) 112 and MAMMAN V. STATE (2015) LPELR 25963.” Per LAMIDO, JCA
And in the case of Makana Dada Vs The State (2017) LPELR – 43468 (SC), the Supreme Court said:
“Direct evidence establishes a fact without making any inference to connect the evidence to the fact. Thus, direct evidence proves or disproves a fact directly. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires an inference to be made to establish a fact. “lnference” is “a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them” – Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. Circumstantial evidence, however, does not point directly to a fact. In other words, an inference must be made, which would link the circumstantial evidence to the fact that the party using it, is trying to prove, which can make it a lot more powerful than direct evidence. See Lori & Anor V. The State (1980) NSCC (Vol. 12) 269, wherein this Court, per Nnamani, JSC, aptly observed as follows – Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is said to be evidence of surrounding circumstances, which by undesigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say it is circumstantial. But the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction – must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Prisoner, and no one else, is the murderer. The facts must be incompatible with innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses than that of his guilt.” Per AUGIE, JSC

I cannot therefore fault the decision of the lower Court convicting Appellant for the killing of the deceased, Jamilu Yusuf, in the circumstance of this case, as there was no material contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution, and Appellant, in the Exhibit 4/4(a) had identified with the persons who robbed the deceased and inflicted the grievous injuries on him, which led to his death. Appellant was also found with the property of the deceased – his cell phone and artificial teeth at the time of his arrest. He also had a knife on him. The deceased was stabbed on the thigh with a knife and he bled to death.

I therefore find no merit in the appeal and dismiss it, affirming the decision of the Lower Court.

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.: I had earlier read in draft form the leading judgment of my learned brother, ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A. I am in agreement with his Lordship’s reasoning and conclusion that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution as highlighted by his Lordship coupled with the confession of appellant pointed unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. Unlike oral testimony which witnesses can slant or even out-rightly manufacture to achieve a desired end, circumstances rarely tell a lie, so where circumstantial evidence points to one and only direction, conviction can be founded on it. In the circumstance, I also dismiss the appeal.

ABUBAKAR MU’AZU LAMIDO, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother, ITA G. MBABA, JCA, and I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein that this appeal is unmeritorious and be dismissed. I too dismiss the appeal and abide by all the consequential orders as contained in the lead judgment.