Whether Medical Evidence is Required in All Cases of Homicide

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 13th day of June, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Mohammed Lawal Garba

Adamu Jauro

Jummai Hannatu Sankey

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein

Festus Obande Ogbuinya

Justices, Supreme Court

SC/CR/690/2020

Between

ABU UMAR                     APPELLANT

And

THE STATE   RESPONDENT

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Festus Obande Ogbuinya, JSC)

The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Kaduna State, on a one count-charge of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to the provision of Section 221(b) of the Penal Code, Laws of Kaduna State, 1991. The Appellant was alleged to have caused the death of one Abdulkadir Abubakar, by stabbing him with a knife on 25th June, 2015. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. In proof of its case, the Respondent fielded three witnesses – PW1, PW2 and PW3, and also tendered some documentary evidence. PW2 – one Sergeant Mohammed Tiji who was the Respondent’s star witness, testified that on the fateful day, while on his way home after close of work, he heard a shout and when he looked around, he saw the Appellant with a knife with a trailing point which he used to stab the deceased on the side of his chest. He further testified that he immediately arrested the Appellant and asked the people around to take him to the Police station, while he took the deceased to the hospital, and he was later called from the hospital on the same day that the deceased was dead. The Appellant did not call any witnesses, but rested his case on that of the prosecution.

After the closure of evidence, respective Counsel for the parties gave their final addresses. In a judgement delivered on 14th December, 2017, the trial court found the Appellant guilty as charged, and sentenced him to death. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the judgement of the trial court. Displeased, the Appellant lodged a further appeal at the Supreme Court.

Issue for Determination

The Supreme Court adopted the first issue distilled by the Appellant’s Counsel which it considered sufficient to decide the appeal, as follows:

Whether the Respondent proved its case against the Appellant, beyond reasonable doubt.

Arguments

Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Respondent did not prove the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, as required by Section 135 of the Evidence Act. He contended that the death of the deceased was not linked to the Appellant, and that PW2 who claimed to be an eyewitness met the deceased unconscious without any communication between them as to who stabbed the deceased. He described the evidence of PW2 as mere speculation, and argued that Exhibit-1 – the confessional statement named Mai Kahu, not the deceased, as the one stabbed, and this contradicted the evidence of PW2 on the identity of the Appellant. Counsel also argued that there was no evidence as to what happened in the hospital where the deceased was taken, hence there was a break in the chain of causation which necessitated medical evidence to prove that the deceased died from the knife stab. He referred to ALUTOHAI v STATE (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 765) 198. He submitted that the absence of medical evidence amongst others, created a reasonable doubt in the case of the Respondent and this ought to have been resolved in favour of the Appellant.

In response, Counsel for the Respondent argued that there was no break in causation and there was no need for medical evidence, as the death of the deceased was duly linked to the Appellant. Counsel also argued that the Appellant, having rested his case on that of the prosecution, is deemed to have accepted the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He contended that PW2 and PW3 were also not cross-examined thereby making their evidence uncontradicted. He submitted that the case of culpable homicide punishable with death was established against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and urged the Apex Court not to disturb the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

The Apex Court held that indeed, the law is established that the burden of proof of a crime rests squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution and the standard of proof is one beyond reasonable doubt, by the presentation of oral or documentary evidence that establish the necessary elements of the offence.

The Supreme Court held that to establish the guilt of a person charged with the offence of culpable homicide with death, the prosecution must prove that: the deceased died, the death of the deceased was caused by the accused, and the act or omission of the accused person which caused the death of the deceased was intentional, with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. The Court held that these three elements of the offence must be proved concurrently, beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court held that on the first ingredient, it was indeed, established that the deceased died; and on the second ingredient, the record revealed that PW2 witnessed the entire awful episode of the Appellant’s dastardly act of stabbing the deceased with a knife. The Apex Court held that in the colony of evidence, case law has ordained the evidence of an eyewitness as one of the ways to prove the commission and ingredients of an offence, apart from confessional statement and circumstantial evidence, and in terms of potency and credibility, the evidence of an eye witness ranks second in the methodical ladder of proof of crimes, conceding the first rung of the ladder to a confession. The Court held that in essence, the unswerving and unchallenged evidence of PW2, inter alia, constituted an existential proof of the second ingredient, that it was the unholy act of the Appellant in stabbing the deceased that caused the death of the deceased.

On the argument of the Appellant’s Counsel that there was a break in the chain of causation which necessitated the presentation of medical evidence to prove the presence of a causal link between the stab and the demise of the deceased, the Court held that it is settled law that the need for medical evidence is rendered lame where: death is instantaneous, or nearly so, from an attack; the cause of death is known or could be inferred from the circumstances of evidence adduced or there is abundant evidence of the manner of death. The Court relied on its earlier decisions in OGBA v STATE (1992) 2 SCNJ/(1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 222) 164; UBANI v STATE (2003) 18 NWLR (PT. 851) 224 and SANI v STATE (2020) 11 NWLR (PT. 1736) 490. The Court held that medical evidence, which encompasses medical report, has ceased to be a conditio sine qua non for proof of all cases of homicide in criminal jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court held that it is discernible from the lower court’s decision, that the unrefuted and concrete evidence of PW2 and PW3 on record is that the Appellant carried out the act of stabbing the deceased at about 12.30pm and the deceased died in the hospital before 2pm and was buried in the evening. The Court held that it is thus inferable from the short time lag between the stabbing and the deceased’s death that the knife stab was the direct and proximate cause of the deceased’s death. The Court further held that there was no ounce of evidence that something inimical to the deceased germinated in between the short time of the killer stab and the demise of the deceased, as to warrant the presentation of any medical evidence or the employment of the doctrine of novus acts interveniens. Relying on UYO v A-G, BENDEL STATE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 17) 418, the Apex Court held that the Appellant’s quarrel with what transpired in the hospital is of no moment, because where medical treatment given to a murder victim is reasonably proper and in good faith, but the deceased still dies, the accused will still be criminally liable if the death resulted from his act on the deceased, except where the deceased died from other causes.

On the 3rd ingredient, regarding whether the Appellant intended to cause death or bodily harm to the deceased, the Apex Court expatiated on the word “intention” as connoting the purpose or design with which an act is done and the foreknowledge of an act coupled with the desire of such foreknowledge and its consequences. The Apex Court held that there was classical evidence on record that the Appellant brutalised the deceased with a stab with a knife, which qualifies as a dangerous weapon under the law. The Court also held that according to the uncontroverted evidence of PW2, the Appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife on his chest, a critical region of the body that warehouses the heart that oxygenates life and secures human life, and the deceased victim was near the weapon of crime (the knife). The Court held that in effect, the trio criteria to determine the intention to kill were satisfied, and the natural consequences of stabbing the deceased on the lifeline of his body, was to terminate his life or, at least cause him grievous bodily harm. The Supreme Court held that the third ingredient of the offence was thus, duly proved by the Respondent.

The Apex Court also held that the Appellant, having rested his case on that of the prosecution without testifying or fielding any witness, is deemed to have adopted the evidence of the prosecution albeit in the hope that even if the evidence is believed, it will be insufficient to convict him. The Court held that resting a case on that of the prosecution signifies that there is no rebuttal of the prosecution’s witness, and the court has the latitude to draw inferences from the uncontroverted evidence, hence, such accused person cannot be heard to quarrel with any portion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

The Apex Court found that it was clear that the Respondent proved the necessary ingredients of culpable homicide punishable with death against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeal rightly affirmed the judgement of the trial court.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

S. O. Ikani for the Appellant.

Ibrahim G. Adamu (holding the Fiat of the Honourable Attorney-General of Kaduna State) for the Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)