Judgment
The burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of an accused person rest on the prosecution by virtue of Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. The prosecution can discharge its burden in three ways namely; 1. Confessional Statement 2. Evidence of an eye witness 3. Circumstantial evidence which is accurate, cogent, convincing and compelling, pointing to only one conclusion that the accused was the one who committed the act. See Emeka v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.734) 666 at 683; Akinmoju v. State (1995) NWLR (Pt. 406) 24 at 212. PER TALBA, J.C.A.
ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment) : This appeal is against the judgment of High Court of Justice Katsina State. Coram Hon. Justice Abdullahi Yusuf Chief Judge (as he then was) delivered on 18th January, 2018 in charge No: KTH/16C/2015. The appellant was arraigned before the lower Court on a one count charge, alleging the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code laws of Katsina State. Prior to his arraignment, the appellant was a serving Police Officer, a constable attached to Central Police Station Katsina.
He was a friend of the deceased Barau Usman. The charge reads: THAT YOU MUHAMMED MAIKUDI of Kofar Sauri Quarters Katsina, Katsina State on or about the 19th day of October, 2014 at Kofar Guga in Katsina Metropolis committed Culpable homicide punishable with death by doing an act to wit: causing the death of USMAN BARA’U by drowning him in a pond with the knowledge that death will be the probable consequence of your act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code. Dated this 2nd day of September, 2015. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.
In order to prove its case the respondent/prosecution called four witnesses and tendered two exhibits. These are the statements of the appellant in Hausa and English version, marked as Exhibits A and A1 respectively. The appellant testified in his own defence and no other witness was called. Learned counsels filed and exchanged written addresses. In a considered judgment the learned trial Chief Judge found the appellant guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to death.
