Voluntarily Causing Grievous

The Obangede High Court of Kogi State [trial Court] found him guilty of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death and convicted and sentenced him to death accordingly. The trial Court, however, struck out the other two heads of the Charge because they “should not have been joined to an offence as serious as the one in the first head – – especially when the alleged victims are different.
At the trial Court, the Prosecution called six witnesses and also tendered Exhibit 3, his statement to the Police, where the Appellant stated that he came home from school to meet the deceased and his brother beating his mother, and that it was when they brought out “charms, guns and animal hun (sic)”, that he entered his room and carried a sharp spear, which he used in hunting, to defend himself; and it was after the deceased’s brother, Yakubu, shot at him and the bullet missed that he used the sharp spear on the deceased’s chest.
The Appellant’s mother, Seriya Shaibu, testified as PW6 for the Prosecution, and she explained that there was a fight between one Obo and her stepson, Lasisi, over a girlfriend, and it was the said Obo that beat her. she insisted that the deceased did not beat her and that the Appellant came home “after the people fighting had left.
In his defence as DW1, the Appellant gave a different account of what happened. He said that when he came home from school, the deceased and his friends came to his house to abuse him, and it was while he was struggling to wrest the spear from the deceased, during the fight that ensued that the spear pierced him in the chest.
In his Judgment delivered on 20/6/98, the learned trial Judge, Olusiyi, J., found that he was an “untruthful and unreliable witness”, and rejected “his viva voce evidence in toto.” He further held that-
Standing on its own, the Prosecutions case is solid, formidable and unassailable. The admission of the Accused in Exhibit 3 that he used a spear on the chest of the deceased, corroborated the evidence of PW4 and PW5, thus lending weight to the case of the Prosecution.
The Appellant’s case at the trial Court was focused on self-defence, but his complaint in the Appeal filed at the Court below centered on the difference in what he said in Exhibit 3 and his defence as DW1.
The Court below expressed surprise that the complaint was not that the trial Court erred in not upholding the plea of self-defence, nonetheless, it held as follows on the issue of the said differences –
For the Appellant, so much fuss was made of the fact that [his] viva voce evidence was inconsistent with [Exhibit 3]. [He] did not expressly retract Exhibit 3. He must have realized from the evidence of PW4, PW5, and PW6 that his plea of self defence was hopeless and would not avail him. Hence his decision to try other defences like accident in his oral testimony. Apart from – – not giving the Prosecution sufficient opportunity to investigate this line of defence, the appellant was not on the same paragraph with his counsel at the trial Court. The said counsel maintained the line of self-defence. Even at that, the defence would appear unsustainable in view of the evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW6, – – – (His) counsel – – submitted that since the viva voce evidence of the Appellant on oath – – was inconsistent with his extra-judicial Statement [Exhibit 3], both should be disregarded as any evidence the Court could act on. I agree entirely. This however does not earn the appellant an order of discharge and acquittal on the available facts.
He also contended that if the trial Court had adverted its mind to paragraph 8 of Exhibit 1 (the Police Post Mortem Form) that says –
“Alleged cause of death: LYNCHED TO DEATH”, against what Exhibit 2 (Medical Report) says was the cause of death, it would have found that the findings at paragraph 11 of Exhibit 2 as the cause of death would have been injuries inflicted after the death of the deceased.
His argument was that there was no certainty as to whether it was the lynching or the alleged injuries on his chest that caused the death of the deceased, thus, the benefit of doubt should be resolved in his favour. The Court below, per Eko, JCA (as he then was), held –
The suggestion that the injury on the chest of the

…………………….B…………………….