Everyone is presumed sane until contrary is proved – Olukayode Ariwoola

Dissatisfaction with the decision of the court of appeal hereinafter called “the court below” led to the instant appeal by the appellant.The matter that culminated into this appeal originated from the charge and trial of the appellant in Sokoto. The following charge had been preferred against the appellant:“That you Umaru Adamu on or about the […]

Dissatisfaction with the decision of the court of appeal hereinafter called “the court below” led to the instant appeal by the appellant.
The matter that culminated into this appeal originated from the charge and trial of the appellant in Sokoto. The following charge had been preferred against the appellant:
“That you Umaru Adamu on or about the 25th August, 2002 at about 0500 hours in Marina Dalhatu Area of Sokoto North Local Government Area within the Sokoto Judicial Division while armed with a knife did commit a heinous act by slaughtering Inno Adamu with the said knife as a result of which she died knowing fully well that her death be the likely consequence of your act and thereby committed an offence to wit culpable homicide, punishable with death contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code.”
After the charge was read to the appellant and he pleaded not guilty, the case proceeded to hearing. The prosecution called seven (7) witnesses but the appellant neither gave evidence nor called any witness in defence of the charge. The case for the prosecution was that on the 25th day of August, 2002, the appellant, who is a mason by profession returned to Sokoto from Abuja. No sooner had he put down his bag than he started beating his sister whom he met in the house but PW3 – Bello Adamu, his elder brother, intervened and separated them. Thereafter, the appellant brought out a knife from his bag and threatened to kill his sister with it. The incident was reported to the police who later settled the matter with a resolution that it was a mere family affair.
Subsequently, in the early hour of 25th August 2002 at about 2.00am, the appellant had gone to the sister’s matrimonial home to see her but was driven away by the sister’s husband. On arrival back in the house, he used his knife to cut the throat of his 70 years old step mother who was sleeping and slaughtered her and she died. After PW3 was alerted on the incident, he came and found the appellant licking the blood on the knife, saying “Allahu Akbar” meaning God is great.
The trial court considered the testimony of all prosecution witnesses and the various exhibits tendered including the statement of the appellant where he admitted that he did what was alleged. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to death. The court below upon an appeal by the appellant affirmed the decision of the trial court.
This is a further appeal being dissatisfied with the decision of the court below, based on a sole ground of appeal as follows:
“The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that evidence of appellant’s insanity, elicited from a witness under cross examination is of no moment thus occasioning miscarriage of justice.”
Issue for Determination:-
“Whether the guilt of the appellant was proved and established beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial court and affirmed by the court of appeal.”
In the same vein, the respondent formulated its own single issue for determination from the sole ground of appeal filed by the appellant.
It reads thus: “Whether the prosecution had from the totality of evidence adduced at the trial court proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. And whether the defence of insanity raised on appeal by the appellant can avail him of the conviction and sentence by lower court which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division.”
In the circumstance, the appeal shall be determined based on the sole issue distilled by the appellant.
Homicide generally means “the killing of one person by another”. It is also “the act of purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causing the death of another human being”. But culpable homicide means a wrongful act that results in a person’s death but does not amount to murder.
However, for the prosecution to secure conviction in a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death under the Penal Code, as in the instant case, the following ingredients must be established:
(i) the death of the deceased;
(ii) that the death resulted from the act of accused; and
(iii) that the accused knew that his act will result in the death or did not care whether the death of the deceased will result from his act.
From the facts available in this case and as clearly conceded by learned counsel for the appellant, it is not in doubt that a woman called Inno Adamu is deceased and that she was killed by the appellant on the day in question. The point in serious contention is whether the other leg of a crime, that is, the mens rea was present in this case.
In other words, it was the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the third ingredient of the crime or offence of culpable homicide was absent in this case. As a result, he submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant, as required, beyond reasonable doubt. For this argument.