homicidal offences - murder & culpable homicide

Yes, it is expected for the victim to have died within ONE YEAR AND ONE DAY of the act or omission before it can be said that the act or omission is the cause of the death of the victim. Section 314 Criminal Code Act, Cap.314 LFN, 2004

No, where the act of the Defendant ordinarily could have caused the death of the deceased, the intervention of a third person may be regarded as the sole cause of the deceased’s death. The Defendant in this case would be exonerated on the basis of the doctrine of Novus actus intervenies.

No, both come under the same major offence called Homicide. While ‘Culpable Homicide’ is used in the Northern part of Nigeria where the Penal Code applies, ‘Murder’ is used in the Southern part of Nigeria where the Criminal Code applies. Section 220 of the Penal Code and Section 316 of the Criminal Code.

Simply put, Homicide is the act of one human killing another human. There are sub-categories of Homicide, including the following:

a) Murder/culpable homicide.

b) Manslaughter.

c) Aggravated murder.

d) Criminal negligent homicide.

In Nigeria, Homicide offences are grouped into just two categories:

a) Murder/culpable Homicide punishable with death.

b) Manslaughter/Culpable Homicide not punishable with death.

Sections 220 and 224 of the Penal Code and sections 316 and 317 of the Criminal code. UKPONG V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

Yes. For example, in a case where a person, during a riotous demonstration starts to burn cars and houses and to destroy properties, he would be liable for the acts of murder where another person dies from such. It is immaterial that the person did not intend to hurt any person. The Last Proviso to Section 316 (6) of the Criminal Code Act, Cap.C38 LFN, 2004; OLAIYA V THE STATE (2017) HELAR.

Yes, in some given circumstance, he will not be found guilty of murder. In such cases, the charge would be that of manslaughter and it would succeed. However, where the Defendant intends to:

(1) do grievous harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or

(2) for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such offence; or

(3) where the Defendant administered any stupefying or overpowering thing for the purpose last mentioned; or

(4) where the Defendant stopped the breath of the person for the purposes mentioned above, it is immaterial that he the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

Section 316(4),(5) and (6) of the Criminal Code Act, Cap.C38 LFN, 2004. ADESINA V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2019) HELAR; UKPONG V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; AGU V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR

By the provisions of Section 221 of the Penal Code, to succeed in a charge of culpable homicide, the Prosecution must prove the following beyond reasonable doubt:

a) That the person the accused person is charged for killing actually died.

b) That the deceased died of the act of the accused.

c) That the act of the accused was intentional and he knew that death or bodily harm was its likely consequence.

DOGO V. STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT.686) 524 P.542, PARAS. G-H; NWACHUKWU V. STATE (2002) FWLR (PT.123) 312; UKPONG V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; OLAIYA V THE STATE (2017) HELAR

In a murder charge, the prosecution must prove and prove so beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. The victim is dead.

2. Death of the victim was caused by the Defendant.

3. The act or omission was intended against the deceased (or some other person).

4. The Defendant knew that the act or omission could cause the death of the victim or cause him grievous bodily harm, (or that the accused so intended to cause the death or grievous bodily harm to another person but the same killed the victim instead). See Section 316 of the Criminal Code Act. **AGU V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (Pt. 895) 1654 SC USEN V. STATE (2013) All FWLR (Pt.689) p.1131 at pp. 1163-1164, paras. G-A; UGURU V. STATE (2002) FWLR (pt. 103) 330 C.A. UKPONG V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; OLAIYA V THE STATE (2017) HELAR; EZE V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR **

The issue of cause of death must be resolved and proved by the prosecution with the certainty pointing directly only to the Defendant. Where there are two possible causes of death, there would be a doubt and this doubt would usually be resolved in favour of the Defendant. See Aiguoreglian V. State (2004) FWLR (pt. 195) 716 @ page 748 and 749 SC. While it can always be lawfully inferred that an injury inflicted on someone by the accused who dies immediately or right on the spot of the attack was the cause of that person’s death, as happened in Akpan v. State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368) 347, in some other circumstances lacking that kind of immediacy, the cause of death may not be that easy to determine.

In the old case of R. v. Oledima (1940) 6 WACA 202 the accused person administered an injection on the deceased who died in a way that it was agreed that it was the infection that resulted from the injection that killed him. But there was some other question that needed to be definitively and correctly answered: Was it the injection or infection by germs on his body that killed him? The prosecution not being able to answer this question, and so unable to discharge the burden of proving the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt, lost the case. This kind of situations bring out the criticality of the prosecution being able to do its work thoroughly so as to attend that high standard of proof required in criminal trial procedure.

It will depend on the circumstances of the case. If the circumstantial evidence is credible and overwhelming enough to warrant a finding that the accused did indeed kill the deceased, he would be found guilty as charged. In the case of Ilodigwe v. State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 1, the accused persons killed the deceased and threw his body into a river and it was never found. But there was one eye witness who saw all that happened and how it all happened and whose evidence in court was very credible and convincing enough. The accused persons were convicted of that murder charge, which conviction, their appeals up to the Supreme Court could not overturn.

In some other circumstance where there is no such eye witness evidence even to establish that the deceased was actually dead, the absence of the body of the deceased could be a crucial and indispensable piece of evidence the absence of which could let the accused off the hook.

No, that is not what the cited cases exactly mean. The cause of death could be determined or ascertained and proved through circumstantial evidence that point to the accused and no other. In another old case, Adamu v. Kano Native Authority (1956) 1 FSC 25, the accused stabbed the deceased twice and inflicted serious injuries in the stomach and back of the deceased. The deceased was carried to the hospital but he died two days after. Though there was no medical evidence stating categorically that the man died from those knife stab wounds, accused’s conviction by the trial court was upheld on appeal as the circumstances of the case left the courts in no doubt as to the cause of the death, making medical report unnecessary. GALADIMA V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR

The above may be different where the circumstance of death of a person is in issue, medical certificate as to the actual cause of death becomes a necessity and failure to produce same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. This is because in a murder case, the prosecution cannot succeed in establishing the guilt of the accused unless it not only establishes the cause of death, but establish in addition, that the act of the accused caused the death of the deceased. LEVI V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

The Prosecution must not only prove that the victim in a murder charge is dead, it must show the actual cause of death and link the cause of the death of the victim to the Defendant. See the case of State V. Adama Sadu & Anor. (2010) FWLR (Pt. 67) 1034 @ 1039 CA. Failure of the Prosecution to prove actual cause of death is fatal for the case of the Prosecution. AKINLOLU V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR.

Yes, all the ingredients of the offence of murder must be proved together and failure of the prosecution to prove any of them means failure of the charge. Adava Anor V. State (2003) FWLR (pt. 177) 797 @ 809 CA. UKPONG V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; OLAIYA V THE STATE (2017) HELAR; EZE V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR

Generally, a man is taken to have intended the natural consequences of his action. This is because no one knows what is in a man’s heart. Thus, certain facts can operate to prove the existence of intention to kill. For example, an unlawful homicide with malice aforethought would operate to prove intention though it may not be called a premeditated act. Also intention to kill can be deduced from the nature of the weapon used or the severity of the wounds inflicted on the deceased – Justice Oamhen V. State (1981) 7 CA. Furthermore, where there is a high probability of death resulting from the act of the Defendant, intention can be inferred from the Defendant culpable. For more see Nyam V. The State (1964) 1 ANLR 356. ADESINA V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2019) HELAR; UKPONG V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; AGU V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR

Where there is positive evidence such as a confessional statement that a victim in a murder is dead such confessional statement would operate to get a continuation for murder despite the fact that the body or corpse of the victim was not found. Nwachukwu V. The State (2002) FWLR (pt. 123) 312 @ 332 SC. Failure to find corpse of victim is not fatal to conviction where there is strong direct evidence. Obidike & Ors. V. The State (2002) FWLR (pt. 87) 784 @ 814. ONYEKABA V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

No. The proof of intention is enough. Evidence of motive is not an essential ingredient in the case of murder and the absence of motive cannot operate to justify or excuse murder. See Jimoh Isholalaloas Ejigbadero V. The State (1978) 9 & 10 SC 81 @ 104 & 105. ADESINA V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2019) HELAR; UKPONG V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; AGU V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR