LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

AHMED v. STATE (2022)

AHMED v. STATE

(2022)LCN/16117(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ILORIN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, April 28, 2022

CA/IL/93C/2021

Before Our Lordships:

Uzo Ifeyinwa Ndukwe-Anyanwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Isaiah Olufemi Akeju Justice of the Court of Appeal

Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ABDULLAHI AHMED APPELANT(S)

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means that it is not enough for the prosecution to suspect a person of having committed a Criminal Offence. There must be evidence, which identified the person accused with the offence, and that it was his act, which caused the offence.
ABADOM VS. STATE (1997) 1 NWLR PT. 479 PG 1,
AIGBADION V. STATE (2000) 4 SC PT 1 PG 1.

To this end, the guilt of an accused person can be proved by:
a) The confessional statement of the accused person.
b) Circumstantial evidence
c) Evidence of eye witness of the crime: IGABELE VS. STATE (2006) 6 NWLR PT. 975 PG. 100.  PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

THE DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN
The last seen doctrine indicates that any accused person charged with murder would be required to offer some explanation as to how the deceased met his death per Augie; Justice, Supreme Court in KOLADE VS. THE STATE (2017) LPELR 42362. See also ARCHIBONG VS. STATE (2006) 14 NWLR PT. 1000 PG 249 and HARUNA VS. A.G.F. (2012) 9 NWLR PT. 1306 PG. 419. Where Adekeye; Justice, Supreme Court had this to say:
“The doctrine of “last seen” means that the law presumes that the person last seen with a deceased bears full responsibility for his death. Thus, where an accused person was the last person to be seen in the company of the deceased and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other conclusion, there is no room for acquittal.
Sanusi; Justice, Supreme Court in Oladapo Vs. The State (2020) LPELR 50553 held in support of this doctrine, held:
“The doctrine of last seen has from time immemorial been entrenched in our Jurisprudence.
The doctrine simply enjoins the Court in Criminal trials to draw inference that a person who was last seen alive with a person and was later found to have been killed or murdered was the murderer depending on the ascertained evidence as to the manner the deceased died.”
Where there is undisputed evidence as in this instant case as to how the deceased victim died, the trial Court is justified in applying the doctrine of last seen by inferring that he was the last person seen with the deceased person killed him. See MBANG VS. STATE (2010) ALL FWLR PT. 508 PG 379 (2009) 18 NWLR PT 1172 PG. 142.
PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. 

WHETHER OR NOT AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
Although, an accused person can be convicted solely on his confessional statement, it is desirable to have some evidence outside the confession which would make it more probable that the confession was true.
See DIBIE VS. STATE (2007) 9 NWLR PT. 1038 PG 30 and NWAEBONYI VS. STATE (1994) 5 NWLR PT. 343 PG. 130.
A free and voluntary confession, which is direct, positive and properly proved, is sufficient to sustain a conviction without any corroborative evidence so long as the Court is satisfied with the truth.
There is however, a duty on the Court to test the truth of a confession by examining it in the light of the other credible evidence before the Court.
See
SOLOLA VS. STATE (2005) 11 NWLR PT. 937 PG 460;
NWAEZE VS. STATE (1996) 2 NWLR PT. 428 PG 1 and
AKINMOJU VS. STATE (2000) 4 SC PT I PG. 64. PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. 

WHETHER OR NOT A VOLUNTARY CONFESSION IS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF GUILT

It is trite that a free and voluntary confession of guilt whether judicial or extra-judicial, if it is direct, positive and properly established is sufficient proof of guilt and is enough to sustain a conviction, so long as the Court is satisfied with the truth of such a confession.
SOLOLA VS. THE STATE (Supra);
EDHIGERE VS. STATE (1996) 8 NWLR PT. 464 PG 1;
ULUEBEKA VS STATE (2000) 4 SC PT 1 PG 205;
IDOWU VS. STATE (2000) 7 SC PT II PG 50 and
ALARAKO VS STATE (2001) 14 WRN PG 1.
PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. 

THE POSITION OF LAW ON PROVING THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY

In order to prove conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirator and every other, but the criminal design alleged must be common to all. Indeed, one conspirator may be in one town and the other in another town and they may never have seen each other but there would be acts on both sides which would lead the judge to the inference.
Per Ogwuegbu; Justice Supreme Court in ERIM VS THE STATE (1994) LPELR 1159, OKORO; Justice Supreme Court in AYINDE VS. THE STATE (2019) LPELR 47835 held:
“The offence of conspiracy is usually shrouded in secrecy. Therefore, it is established once it becomes clear to the Court that the conspirators know of the existence and the intention or purpose of the conspiracy. In most cases, conspiracy is inferred or presumed. See AFOLABI VS. THE STATE (Supra), OSUAGWU VS. THE STATE (2013) 1-2 SC PT. 1 PG 37, LAWSON VS THE STATE (1975) 4 SC PG 115, MUMUNI VS THE STATE (1975) 6 SC PG 79.”  PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. 

UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Kwara State delivered on 14th March, 2016 by S.D. Kawu, CJ.

The brief fact of this appeal is that on 1st April, 2009, the Appellant lured the deceased Amidu Sanda to the farm to harvest locust beans. On getting to the farm, the Appellant beheaded the boy, Amidu Sanda. He thereafter carried the head to the 2nd Accused in the lower Court. The 2nd Accused thereafter, took the boy’s head to the 3rd Accused in Offa.

When the young boy was not seen at night fall, an alarm was raised. People said they saw the Appellant with the boy. On further enquiry, the Appellant agreed he went with the boy but that the boy fell down from the locust bean tree and died, and he buried him there.

The case was reported to the Police which led to the arrest of the Appellant who led them to the farm where he buried the headless body of the boy.

Investigations led to the arrest of the 2nd and 3rd Accused persons. The boy’s head was found with the 3rd Accused in Offa.

After investigations, four (4) people were arraigned. However, the Respondent withdrew the charge against the 4th Accused.

The case proceeded and the Prosecution called 6 PWS and tendered 24 Exhibits.

At the close of the case, both Counsel adopted their written addresses. The learned trial Judge thereafter, delivered his considered judgment finding the Appellant guilty of the offences charged. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with his conviction appealed. He filed his Notice after obtaining an order of Court of 29th June, 2021.

The Notice of Appeal with two (2) grounds was filed on 29th June, 2021.

The Appellant filed his Appellant’s Brief on 31st December, 2021 and articulated a sole issue for determination thus:-
WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL CHIEF JUDGE WAS RIGHT WHEN HE CONVICTED AND SENTENCED THE APPELLANT AS DONE WHEN THE RESPONDENT DID NOT MAKE OUT A CASE FOR SUCH A DECISION? (DISTILLED FROM GROUNDS 1 AND 2 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL).

In reply, the Respondent filed its Brief on 16th February, 2022 but deemed properly filed and served on 28th February, 2022. In it, a sole issue was also articulated for the Court’s determination:
“Whether by the available evidence before the Court, the learned trial judge was right to have convicted and sentenced the appellant.”

I will utilise the issue articulated by the Appellant the owner of this appeal.

SOLE ISSUE
Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent must discharge the burden of proof the law placed on it, if not, the Appellant must be discharged and acquitted. See AZEEZ VS. THE STATE (2005) 8 NWLR PT. 927 PG 312.

Counsel argued that there was a doubt as to who actually killed the victim. Upon the arrest of the Appellant, he made Exhibit P11, wherein he said it was the 2nd Accused who killed the victim. Exhibit P11 was made on 1st April, 2009, when the incident was very fresh. Exhibit P13, the second statement of the Appellant narrated how he killed the victim.

Counsel argued that the learned trial Judge relied on the decision in ALO VS. THE STATE (2015) 9 NWLR PT. 1464 PG 238. The trial Judge preferred Exhibit P13 to P11 which was less favourable to the Appellant where he admitted killing the victim.

Counsel argued that there was a doubt about who killed the victim. See Exhibit P11 and Exhibit P13.

Counsel opined that this doubt should be resolved in favour of the Appellant.

Counsel referred the Court to the case of JIMOH VS. THE STATE (2014) 3 SC PG 1 PER ARIWOLA JSC where he held as follows:-
“…. Having dealt with the substantive offences of culpable homicide punishable with death and being in unlawful possession of human head contrary to Section 221 and 219 Penal Code respectively, I shall now proceed to see how far the conspiracy count is made out (see JIMOH V. STATE SUPRA).”

The learned trial Judge found the Appellant guilty of Conspiracy in line with JIMOH VS. STATE (Supra).

Counsel argued that the Appellant was not charged with the offence of Criminal Conspiracy to commit the offence of unlawful possession of human head as convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Chief Judge.

Counsel finally urged the Court to allow this appeal.

In response, the Respondent submitted that the burden of proving the guilt of the Appellant is squarely on the Respondent, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Respondent argued that it proved the basic ingredients of the offences charged, which are:-
a) That there was the death of the deceased (victim) of the crime
b) That the death had been caused by the accused person
c) That the act of the accused persons was done with intention of causing the death or that it was done with the intention of causing bodily injury on victim of the crime. SEE OCHANI VS THE STATE (2017) 12 SMC 120, MUHAMMAD VS STATE (2017) 12 SCM (PT 2) 588.

All these ingredients were proved by the Respondent against the Appellant.

The Respondent proved that the victim, Amidu Sanda was dead. The Appellant led PW2, the IPO, PW3 and PW4 to the farm where the headless body of the victim was found. The Appellant also led PW2 to the arrest of 2nd Accused and 3rd Accused who had the head of the victim still in his possession. The Appellant was the last seen with the victim early in the afternoon of that day 1st April, 2009. Appellant made Exhibit P11 and P13. Exhibit P13 gave the gory tale of how he took the victim to the farm and slaughtered him.

The Appellant also led the PW2 and others to where the headless body of the victim was found. Also, the Appellant directed the PW2 to the 2nd and 3rd Accused persons.

Counsel urged the Court to hold that the two (2) accused person including the Appellant were accomplices and co-conspirators from their various actions and role played in the commission of the crimes. Counsel still referred the Court to the case of ALO VS. THE STATE (Supra).

Counsel submitted that the Appellant intended the consequences of his actions. Using a cutlass; Exhibit P2 on the 9 year old victim could not have led to any other conclusion. See IBIKUNLE VS. STATE (2007) 2 NWLR PT. 1019 PG. 546.

The Court believed the truth in Exhibit P13 See GALADIMA VS. STATE (2013) 3 NWLR PT. 1333 PG 613, KAREEM VS. FRN (2002) FWLR PT. 104 PG 555.

There was also the doctrine of last seen which militated against the Appellant OLADAPO VS. THE STATE (2020) 3 SCM PG 134, MOSES JUA VS. STATE (2010) 4 NWLR PT. 1184 PG. 217, IGABELE VS. THE STATE (2006) 6 NWLR PT. 975 PG 100.

The evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and the confessional statement Exhibit P13 leaves no Room for doubt.

The Counsel submitted that whatever words were used in the charge sheet all go to the same that the charge is:

“Having or possessing a human head or caught with human head.”

Whatever word used, the Appellant was rightly convicted of the crimes charged.

Counsel finally urged the Court to hold that the Respondent proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and dismiss this appeal, it lacking in merit.

RESOLUTION
The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means that it is not enough for the prosecution to suspect a person of having committed a Criminal Offence. There must be evidence, which identified the person accused with the offence, and that it was his act, which caused the offence.
ABADOM VS. STATE (1997) 1 NWLR PT. 479 PG 1,
AIGBADION V. STATE (2000) 4 SC PT 1 PG 1.

To this end, the guilt of an accused person can be proved by:
a) The confessional statement of the accused person.
b) Circumstantial evidence
c) Evidence of eye witness of the crime: IGABELE VS. STATE (2006) 6 NWLR PT. 975 PG. 100.

In this appeal, the Appellant in the lower Court was said to have lured the victim to the farm.

The Appellant was the one last seen with the victim before his dead body was discovered.

The last seen doctrine indicates that any accused person charged with murder would be required to offer some explanation as to how the deceased met his death per Augie; Justice, Supreme Court in KOLADE VS. THE STATE (2017) LPELR 42362. See also ARCHIBONG VS. STATE (2006) 14 NWLR PT. 1000 PG 249 and HARUNA VS. A.G.F. (2012) 9 NWLR PT. 1306 PG. 419. Where Adekeye; Justice, Supreme Court had this to say:
“The doctrine of “last seen” means that the law presumes that the person last seen with a deceased bears full responsibility for his death. Thus, where an accused person was the last person to be seen in the company of the deceased and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other conclusion, there is no room for acquittal.
Sanusi; Justice, Supreme Court in Oladapo Vs. The State (2020) LPELR 50553 held in support of this doctrine, held:
“The doctrine of last seen has from time immemorial been entrenched in our Jurisprudence.
The doctrine simply enjoins the Court in Criminal trials to draw inference that a person who was last seen alive with a person and was later found to have been killed or murdered was the murderer depending on the ascertained evidence as to the manner the deceased died.”
Where there is undisputed evidence as in this instant case as to how the deceased victim died, the trial Court is justified in applying the doctrine of last seen by inferring that he was the last person seen with the deceased person killed him. See MBANG VS. STATE (2010) ALL FWLR PT. 508 PG 379 (2009) 18 NWLR PT 1172 PG. 142.

In this appeal, the victim was last seen with the Appellant. The Appellant himself in Exhibit P11 narrated his story of how the victim fell from the locust bean tree. He did not deny that the victim was last seen with him. The Appellant also in Exhibit P13 explained how he took the victim to the bush and cut off his head. The Appellant said he there and then called the 2nd Accused person who quickly took the head of the victim to the 3rd Accused in Offa.

These facts are what the Appellant gave in his two extra-judicial statements Exhibits P11 and P13 to the Police. There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission OR confession. Such a confession is admissible in evidence. 

Although, an accused person can be convicted solely on his confessional statement, it is desirable to have some evidence outside the confession which would make it more probable that the confession was true.
See DIBIE VS. STATE (2007) 9 NWLR PT. 1038 PG 30 and NWAEBONYI VS. STATE (1994) 5 NWLR PT. 343 PG. 130.
A free and voluntary confession, which is direct, positive and properly proved, is sufficient to sustain a conviction without any corroborative evidence so long as the Court is satisfied with the truth.
There is however, a duty on the Court to test the truth of a confession by examining it in the light of the other credible evidence before the Court.
See
SOLOLA VS. STATE (2005) 11 NWLR PT. 937 PG 460;
NWAEZE VS. STATE (1996) 2 NWLR PT. 428 PG 1 and
AKINMOJU VS. STATE (2000) 4 SC PT I PG. 64.

The learned trial Judge after the trial within trial held that both confessional statements were made voluntarily. However, both Exhibits described in a different way how the victim died.

The Appellant in Exhibit P11 stated that the victim fell down from a locust bean tree and died. If it were accidental, the Applicant would have alerted the victim’s father and the villagers. The Appellant after Exhibit P11 led the Police and others to the location of the body of the victim. It was there that it became obvious that the victim did not die as a result of a fall. The victim’s headless body was seen when the Appellant led them to the farm.

In Exhibit P13, the Appellant described how he lured the victim to the farm, how he instructed him to cover his face with a red cloth, how he instructed the victim to lie face down, before he chopped off his head with the sharpened cutlass he took with him to the farm. After which he telephoned 2nd Accused to come and carry the head, the 2nd Accused promptly took the head to the 3rd Accused in Offa.

There is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession and such confession is admissible. A confession made in judicial proceedings is of greater force or value then all other proofs. 

A confession is more often denied OR retracted. The denial OR retraction is a matter to be taken into consideration to decide what weight could be attached to it. Per Adekeye; Justice Supreme Court in OSENI VS. STATE (2012) LPELR 7833. See also DIBIE VS. STATE (2007) 9 NWLR PT. 1038 PG 30, UKPONG VS. QUEEN (NO. 1) (1961) 1 SCNLR PG. 23, IDOWU VS. THE STATE (2007) SC PT. 1 PG. 50.

A confession is an admission made anytime by an accused person charged with a criminal act stating or suggesting that he committed the offence.

The Appellant in both Exhibits P11 and P13 stated inter alia that he took the victim into the farm and did not return with him.

The doctrine of last seen was established. It was the Appellant himself in Exhibit P13 who gave a detailed step by step account of what transpired in the bush leading to the beheading of the victim. No one else could have those details except the Appellant.

The PW2, PW3 and PW4 were led to the bush where the headless body of the victim was recovered.

The Appellant never denied leading all these witnesses to were the headless body of the victim was recovered.

It is trite that a free and voluntary confession of guilt whether judicial or extra-judicial, if it is direct, positive and properly established is sufficient proof of guilt and is enough to sustain a conviction, so long as the Court is satisfied with the truth of such a confession.
SOLOLA VS. THE STATE (Supra);
EDHIGERE VS. STATE (1996) 8 NWLR PT. 464 PG 1;
ULUEBEKA VS STATE (2000) 4 SC PT 1 PG 205;
IDOWU VS. STATE (2000) 7 SC PT II PG 50 and
ALARAKO VS STATE (2001) 14 WRN PG 1.

To buttress the fact that Exhibit P13 was voluntary, PW3 during cross-examination stated he was present whilst the Appellant was being interrogated: PW2, PW3 and PW4 were all along in the Police Station whilst all these interrogations were going on. It was from these interrogations that all the facts were elicited. From the information elicited, the Appellant led PW2, PW3 and PW4 and others to the farm where the body was discovered. Also, the Appellant led them to the 3rd Accused who volunteered to show them where he hid the victim’s head.

The evidence against the Appellant is so strong that it cannot be up turned. The Respondent proved that the victim; Amidu Sanda is dead. His headless body was recovered from the bush whilst his head was traced with the help of the Appellant to the 3rd Accused in Offa.

The Respondent also proved that the death of Amidu Sanda was caused by the action of the Appellant. The Appellant lured Amidu Sanda to the farm where he beheaded him and sent his head to 3rd Accused in Offa.

Also proved was that the act of the Appellant was done with the intention of causing his death. A man who beheads another person did not intend causing grievous harm but intended death for the victim. A man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. See AUDU VS THE STATE (2003) 7 NWLR PT 820 PG 516, AFOLABI VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR 40300, NWOKEARU VS. STATE (2010) 15 NWLR PT 1215 PG 1, HALIRU VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR 41310.
The Respondent in all, proved that the Appellant who went to the farm with a sharp cutlass with his victim intended to kill the victim which he did with the sharp cutlass. See SANI VS THE STATE (2017) LPELR 43475.
It is clear from the actions of the Appellant that he did intend to kill Amidu Sanda; the victim as he had a ready 3rd Accused to receive the head for a fee. Therefore, the intention was already crystallised in his eventual act of beheading the victim.

Finally, whether the Respondent proved conspiracy between the Appellant and the other 2 Accused persons in the lower Court? It has been settled that conspiracy is rarely proved by direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence and inference from certain proved facts. Per Iyizoba Justice Court of Appeal in FRN VS. AMAH (2015) LPELR 24563.
In order to prove conspiracy, it is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirator and every other, but the criminal design alleged must be common to all. Indeed, one conspirator may be in one town and the other in another town and they may never have seen each other but there would be acts on both sides which would lead the judge to the inference.
Per Ogwuegbu; Justice Supreme Court in ERIM VS THE STATE (1994) LPELR 1159, OKORO; Justice Supreme Court in AYINDE VS. THE STATE (2019) LPELR 47835 held:
“The offence of conspiracy is usually shrouded in secrecy. Therefore, it is established once it becomes clear to the Court that the conspirators know of the existence and the intention or purpose of the conspiracy. In most cases, conspiracy is inferred or presumed. See AFOLABI VS. THE STATE (Supra), OSUAGWU VS. THE STATE (2013) 1-2 SC PT. 1 PG 37, LAWSON VS THE STATE (1975) 4 SC PG 115, MUMUNI VS THE STATE (1975) 6 SC PG 79.”
In this appeal, the 3rd Accused needed a fresh human head and solicited the help of the 2nd accused who in turn convinced the Appellant. The Appellant swung into action, killed or beheaded Amidu Sanda. He again called the 2nd Accused who took the head and deposited it to 3rd accused from whence it was recovered. Conspiracy can be inferred in that the concert started and ended with them achieving their goal of getting a fresh human head.

In all, I believe and hold that the prosecution/Respondent has satisfied the evidential burden placed on it by the law that is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution does not only suspect an accused person to have committed the criminal offence. But that he indeed committed the criminal offence charged.
There must be evidence which identified the person accused with the offence, and that it was his act which caused the offence. See ABADOM VS THE STATE (1997) 1 NWLR PT. 479 PG 1, AIGBADION VS. THE STATE (2000) 4 SC PT 1 PG 15.

In this appeal there was the confession of the Appellant; Exhibits P11 and P13 which is free, and voluntary. It is voluntary as it was elicited in evidence that PW3 and PW4 were there during the interrogation that culminated in the Appellant leading the party to the location they found the headless body and the head with 3rd Accused in Offa and thereafter, the extra-judicial statements Exhibit P11 and P13.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Appellant did lure the victim Amidu Sanda to the farm and beheaded him. There is no iota of doubt in this. There was no denial of the events in his extra-judicial confession which were both given within 72 hours or 3 days of the incident.

There is no room for doubt as to the sequence of things and the arrest of the Appellant and his co-conspirators.

This appeal is unmeritorious. It is dismissed.

I affirm the judgment of the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the Appellant to death.

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: I agree with my learned brother, UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA, that this appeal is unmeritorious. I dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court.

KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read the draft judgment of my learned brother, UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA. 

I agree with his Lordship’s reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is unmeritorious. I too dismiss the appeal.

Appearances:

Ayoola Ajayi, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Abdullahi Yusuf, Esq., Chief State Counsel. For Respondent(s)