MUKAILA AMODU v. THE STATE
(2019)LCN/13183(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 3rd day of May, 2019
CA/IB/383C/2016
RATIO
MANSLAUGHTER: DEFINITION
Manslaughter is the performance of an unlawful act which result in an unintended or accidental death of another.PER FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
MANSLAUGHTER: WHAT MUST BE PROVED IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENCE
It is trite that in order to sustain a conviction for the offence, the prosecution mustprove the following:
1) That the deceased died.
2) That the killing of the deceased was not authorized or not justified or not excused by law.
3) That it is the unlawful act of the Accused person that caused the death of the deceased.
See ADESINA VS. PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2019) LPELR 46403 AT 22 PARAS B E; EGBIRIKA VS. THE STATE (2014) NWLR (PT. 1398) 558; APUGO VS. THE STATE (2001) 18 NWLR (PT. 745) 251 AT 286 PARAS B D; SOWEMIMO VS. THE STATE (2004) 11 NWLR (PT. 885) 515 AT 534 PARAS B – C.PER FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
GUILT: HOW TO ESTABLISH GUILT UNDER CRIMINAL LAW
The law is settled that the prosecution may proceed to establish the guilt of an accused person by adopting any or a combination of the following methods:
a) Testimony or testimonies of eye witness or witnesses and/or
b) Confessional statement made voluntarily by the Accused person and/or
c) Circumstantial evidence which clearly points to the sole fact that the accused person and no other person committed the offence charged.
See GIKI VS. THE STATE (2018) 6 NWLR (PT. 1615) 237 AT 247 PARAS E – G; NWABUEZE VS. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2018) 1 NWLR (PT. 1630) PG. 201 AT 215- 216 PARAS H A; IGABELE VS. THE STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (PT. 975) 100 AT 130 PARAS D – E.PER FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
CONFESSION: A CONFESSION IS ENOUGH TO LEAD TO A CONVICTION
The law is that where the statement made by an accused person to the investigating authority is confessional in nature, it is sufficient to ground a conviction. Such statement must however have been made freely and voluntarily. It must be direct and positive with reference to the offence with which the accused person is charged. See NWEZE VS. THE STATE (2018) 6 NWLR (PT.1615) PAGE 197 AT 210 PARAS E ? F; IMOH VS. THE STATE (2016) 17 NWLR (PT. 1540) 117 AT 132 PARA B; ASIMI VS. THE STATE (2016) 12 NWLR (PT. 1527) 414 AT 432 PARAS A – B AND AKINDIPE VS. THE STATE (2016) 15 NWLR (PT. 1536) PG.470 AT 487 PARAS D – E.PER FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: WHAT DOES IT MEAN
Circumstantial evidence has been described as the evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving on proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It comprises of a number of complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which if established to the satisfaction of the Court entitles the Court to rely on same to convict an accused person. The totality of such evidence must point to one irresistible conclusion which is that the accused person committed the offence. In other words, the combined effect of all the surrounding circumstances creates a strong conclusion of guilt. See ANYASODOR VS. THE STATE (2018) 8 NWLR (PT. 1620) 107 AT 123 PARAGRAPHS G – H; ADO VS. THE STATE (2017) 15 NWLR (PT. 1587) 65 AT 85 PARAGRAPHS C – G; IGBIKIS VS. THE STATE (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1575) 126 AT 147 PARAGRAPHS A – C.PER FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
COURT: COURTS MUST NOT ACT BASED ON SPECULATIONS
The law is trite that a Court of law must only act on empirical facts placed before it and not on mere speculations. It is not the duty of any Court to fill any gaps in the evidence adduced before it.PER FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE: THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT LIES ON THE PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL LAW
The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the Appellant caused the death of the deceased either directly or indirectly. They had a duty to prove that the unlawful act of the Appellant caused the death of the deceased. The test is not subjective but an objective test.
SeeAMAYO VS. THE STATE (2001) 18 NWLR (PT. 745) PG. 251 AT 285 PARAGRAPHS D F and UMORU VS. THE STATE (1990) 3 NWLR (PT. 138) PG. 363 AT 371 PARAGRAPHS C D.PER FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
CRIMINAL LAW: WHAT PROSECUTION MUST DO IN ORDER TO SECURE A CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL
To secure a conviction in a criminal trial the prosecution must prove all the ingredients of the offence charged and the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. See KALU VS. THE STATE (1994) 8 NWLR (PT. 364) PG. 568; OBIR VS. THE STATE (1997) 7 NWLR (PT. 513) PG. 357.PER FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MUKAILA AMODU Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Justice, Ogun State, Aiyetoro Judicial Division, Aiyetoro on a one count charge of Manslaughter contrary to Section 317 and punishable under Section 325 of the Criminal Code Law Vol.1 Laws of Nigeria. The Particulars of the offence as contained on the face of the charge is as follows:
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
MUKAILA AMODU (M) on or about 16th day of October, 2010 in Eggua Town in Aiyetoro in the Aiyetoro Judicial Division unlawfully killed Kemi Amodu (F).
The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The case went on to trial. In a judgment delivered on the 26th of June 2014, the Appellant was convicted of the offence of Manslaughter and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant who was granted leave to appeal by this Court on the 9th of January, 2018 filed a Notice of Appeal containing four grounds of appeal on the 18th of January, 2018.
The judgment of the lower Court is at pages 40 ? 44 of the transcript record of appeal while the Notice of Appeal is
1
at pages 47 ? 51.
Briefly, the facts of this case are that on the 16th of October 2010 the Appellant was at home with the deceased, who was his wife. The deceased accused the appellant of stealing the sum of N100.00 being proceeds of sale of Cocoa she sold for her father. The Appellant denied taking the money. The deceased thereafter took firewood from the fire with which she hit the appellant on the face. The appellant slapped her in return. She fell down and fainted. The deceased was taken to the hospital where she was admitted. The doctor gave a bill of N5,000 out of which the Appellant was able to pay only N2,500.00. The doctor told him to carry his wife home when he could not complete the payment. It was while he was at home with his wife that the police came to arrest him on the instructions of his father-in-law. He was taken into police custody and it was while in custody that he heard of the death of his wife.
?
The Appellant?s Counsel filed an Appellant?s Brief of Argument on the 5th of July 2018 which was deemed as duly filed on the 21st of November 2018. The Respondent?s Brief of Argument was filed on the 5th of
2
December, 2018.
At the hearing of this appeal on the 26th of February, 2019, Learned Counsel to the Appellant adopted the Appellant?s Brief of Argument as his oral arguments and urged us to allow the appeal. Learned Counsel to the Respondent who hitherto had filed a Respondent?s Brief of Argument conceded the appeal. The effect of this concession is that the Respondent agreed that the prosecution i.e. the respondent in this appeal failed to establish the offence of manslaughter preferred against the Appellant. Having conceded the appeal the Respondent?s Brief of Argument shall be discountenanced.
The Appellant?s Counsel in his Brief of Argument formulated three issues for determination to wit:
1) Whether having regard to the state and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution through its witnesses before the Lower Court, the offence of Manslaughter was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant. (Distilled from GROUNDS 1 and 2).
2) Whether having regard to the intervening events and factors in the circumstances surrounding this case, the trial Court was right to have held that it was the act of the
3
Appellant that caused the death of the deceased and convicted him of Manslaughter. (Distilled from GROUND 3).
3) Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the defence of provocation/accident would avail the Appellant.
Issues Nos. 1 and 2 formulated by the Appellant?s Counsel are interwoven. I would therefore consider them together.
ISSUES NOS. 1 AND 2
Relying on the cases of EDOHO VS. STATE (2004) 5 NWLR (PT.865) 17 AT 43 PARAS. A-D AND MAREN V. STATE (2010) 3 NWLR (PT. 1181) 254 AT 217, PARAS G-H, Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated the ingredients of the offence of Manslaughter which are:
a) That the deceased had died.
b) That the killing was unlawful.
c) That the death of the deceased was caused by the act of the Accused person.
?He conceded the first ingredient was proved, but submitted the prosecution failed to prove the second and third ingredients of the offence charged. It is Counsel?s contention that the act of slapping the deceased though unlawful is not a dangerous act as no reasonable man would think so in the circumstance of this case. The deceased hit the Appellant
4
with burning firewood. He submitted further that the prosecution failed to show that it was the act of the Appellant that caused the death of the deceased. He craved in aid of his submission the case of OFORLETE VS. THE STATE (2000) 12 NWLR (PT. 681) 415 AT 441 PARAS G ? H AND 442 PARA B.
Appellant?s Counsel submitted further that the conclusion of the trial Court that the deceased died of head injury was a speculation not supported by evidence. He relied on the case of AIGUOREGHIAN VS. THE STATE (2004) 3 NWLR (PT. 860) 367 AT 407 PARA F. He argued further that the failure of the prosecution to call the medical doctor as a witness in the circumstances of this case was fatal in view of the evidence of the Appellant that the deceased was okay at the time she was discharged from the hospital. He finally urged us to hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant and discharge and acquit him.
Manslaughter is the performance of an unlawful act which result in an unintended or accidental death of another. It is trite that in order to sustain a conviction for the offence, the prosecution must
5
prove the following:
1) That the deceased died.
2) That the killing of the deceased was not authorized or not justified or not excused by law.
3) That it is the unlawful act of the Accused person that caused the death of the deceased.
See ADESINA VS. PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2019) LPELR 46403 AT 22 PARAS B E; EGBIRIKA VS. THE STATE (2014) NWLR (PT. 1398) 558; APUGO VS. THE STATE (2001) 18 NWLR (PT. 745) 251 AT 286 PARAS B ? D; SOWEMIMO VS. THE STATE (2004) 11 NWLR (PT. 885) 515 AT 534 PARAS B ? C.
The law is settled that the prosecution may proceed to establish the guilt of an accused person by adopting any or a combination of the following methods:
a) Testimony or testimonies of eye witness or witnesses and/or
b) Confessional statement made voluntarily by the Accused person and/or
c) Circumstantial evidence which clearly points to the sole fact that the accused person and no other person committed the offence charged.
See GIKI VS. THE STATE (2018) 6 NWLR (PT. 1615) 237 AT 247 PARAS E ? G; NWABUEZE VS. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2018) 1 NWLR (PT. 1630) PG. 201 AT 215 ? 216 PARAS H
6
? A; IGABELE VS. THE STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (PT. 975) 100 AT 130 PARAS D ? E.
I have gone through the transcript record of appeal, and I find abundant evidence to support the fact that the Appellant?s Wife (deceased) died s
