md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
THE STATE- Appellant
AND
MUHAMMED MASIGA (TSOLO)- Respondent
…………………….A…………………….
SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division in criminal appeal no CA/K/160/C/2012 delivered on the 20th December, 2012 by which said Judgment, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the Respondent by the High Court of Jigawa State sitting in Hadejia.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant on 16th day of March, 2010 at Yelleman Hausawa Village in Kaugama Local Government Area of Jigawa State was alleged to have had an unlawful sexual intercourse in an uncompleted building with one Amina Salihu a girl aged ten years who was an imbecile by luring her with sweets.
The trial Court in its Judgment delivered on 13th March, 2012 found the respondent guilty and sentence him to a fine of #20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) only or 6 years imprisonment for the offence of rape and #10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira) only on the offence of attempt to escape from lawful custody or 3 years imprisonment.
The Respondent having not been satisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court above, appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna. In its Judgment, the lower Court set aside the decision of the trial Court, discharged and acquitted the Respondent.
This appeal is against that Judgment. In accordance with the Rules of this Court, briefs were filed and exchanged by parties. The Appellant’s brief was settled by one Yakubu A. H. Ruba. Esq., and filed on the 14th August, 2013.
The Respondent brief of argument was however settled by one Mustapha Bulama Esq., and filed on the 2nd October, 2013.
For the determination of this appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated 3 issues and urged the Court to allow the appeal.
“1. Whether the Court below was right to have set aside the Judgment of the lower trial Court having regard to the fact that the Respondent was convicted based on his confessional statement (Grounds I and II).
2. Whether the lower Court was right to have held that the retracted confessional statement of accused/respondent did not pass the test that could have elevated it to a confessional statement.
3. Whether the lower Court was right to have held that the lower trial Court neither considered the defence put forward by the accused or evaluate the evidence of the prosecution.”
On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent formulated 2 issues for determination and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were wrong when they allowed the appeal before them on the ground that the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court fell short of discharging the burden of Proof required by the law in Criminal proceedings. Grounds 2,3,4,5 and 7.
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were right when they held that the failure of the trial Court in not properly assessing and evaluating the evidence relating to the defence put forward by the Respondent led to a wrong conclusion that the Respondent was guilty of the offence charged. Grounds 1 and 6.”
After examining the issues formulated by Counsel, I have reframed issues for determination as follows:
“1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were right when they allowed the appeal before them on the ground that the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court fell short of discharging the burden of proof required by the law in Criminal proceedings.
2. Whether the lower Court was right in setting aside the conviction of respondent for the offence under Section 95 of the Penal Code which he was not charged with.”
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the answer to the foregoing should be in the negative. He observed that the statement of the Respondent to the police which is tendered as Exhibit 1B before the lower trial Court is crystal clear. Learned counsel argued that once an accused person made a statement admitting the allegation made against him or creating the impression that he committed the offence with which he is charged, then that statement or impression becomes confessional. He relied on ALARAPE VS THE STATE (2001) FWLR (Pt.41) 1872 SC, EGBOGHONOME VS THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 383 SC.
Learned counsel argued that the learned justices of the lower Court were in great error as to their quotation of Exhibit 1A and a fortiori in the meaning of their English translation of the Hausa statement.
The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant on 16th day of March, 2010 at Yelleman Hausawa Village in Kaugama Local Government Area of Jigawa State was alleged to have had an unlawful sexual intercourse in an uncompleted building with one Amina Salihu a girl aged ten years who was an imbecile by luring her with sweets.
The trial Court in its Judgment delivered on 13th March, 2012 found the respondent guilty and sentence him to a fine of #20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) only or 6 years imprisonment for the offence of rape and #10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira) only on the offence of attempt to escape from lawful custody or 3 years imprisonment.
The Respondent having not been satisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court above, appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna. In its Judgment, the lower Court set aside the decision of the trial Court, discharged and acquitted the Respondent.
This appeal is against that Judgment. In accordance with the Rules of this Court, briefs were filed and exchanged by parties. The Appellant’s brief was settled by one Yakubu A. H. Ruba. Esq., and filed on the 14th August, 2013.
The Respondent brief of argument was however settled by one Mustapha Bulama Esq., and filed on the 2nd October, 2013.
For the determination of this appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated 3 issues and urged the Court to allow the appeal.
“1. Whether the Court below was right to have set aside the Judgment of the lower trial Court having regard to the fact that the Respondent was convicted based on his confessional statement (Grounds I and II).
2. Whether the lower Court was right to have held that the retracted confessional statement of accused/respondent did not pass the test that could have elevated it to a confessional statement.
3. Whether the lower Court was right to have held that the lower trial Court neither considered the defence put forward by the accused or evaluate the evidence of the prosecution.”
On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent formulated 2 issues for determination and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were wrong when they allowed the appeal before them on the ground that the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court fell short of discharging the burden of Proof required by the law in Criminal proceedings. Grounds 2,3,4,5 and 7.
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were right when they held that the failure of the trial Court in not properly assessing and evaluating the evidence relating to the defence put forward by the Respondent led to a wrong conclusion that the Respondent was guilty of the offence charged. Grounds 1 and 6.”
After examining the issues formulated by Counsel, I have reframed issues for determination as follows:
“1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were right when they allowed the appeal before them on the ground that the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court fell short of discharging the burden of proof required by the law in Criminal proceedings.
2. Whether the lower Court was right in setting aside the conviction of respondent for the offence under Section 95 of the Penal Code which he was not charged with.”
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the answer to the foregoing should be in the negative. He observed that the statement of the Respondent to the police which is tendered as Exhibit 1B before the lower trial Court is crystal clear. Learned counsel argued that once an accused person made a statement admitting the allegation made against him or creating the impression that he committed the offence with which he is charged, then that statement or impression becomes confessional. He relied on ALARAPE VS THE STATE (2001) FWLR (Pt.41) 1872 SC, EGBOGHONOME VS THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 383 SC.
Learned counsel argued that the learned justices of the lower Court were in great error as to their quotation of Exhibit 1A and a fortiori in the meaning of their English translation of the Hausa statement.
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading THE STATE v. MASIGA (TSOLO)
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.