IDIRISU V. THE STATE

• Pages: 12-15

12



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

IDIRISU V. THE STATE



5

YAHAYA IDIRISU



APPELLANT

V

THE STATE



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 445/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.0

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

20th January, 1967

Criminal Law - and Procedure of Northern Nigeria - Culpable Homicide punishable

with death - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 249(3)

Appeals - to Supreme Court - Written report of medical officer on injuries and

cause of death - inconsistencies between report and other evidence - Trial

judge wrongly refitsing defendant's application for medical officer to testify -

Other evidence in support of charge - No miscarriage of justice.

25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether an accused's persons request that the maker of a medical report be

called as a witness should be refused by a trial Judge.

2.

Would a trial judge's refusal to accede to such a request be fatal to the

prosecution's case or an eventual conviction of the accused?



30

FACTS:

The appellant was charged with murder, to wit: that on or about the 13th De-

cember, 1964 at Dapma Village he caused the death of one Asibi. The prosecu-

tion adduced evidence through an eye- witness, the husband of Asibi, that the

appellant struck Asibi on the head with a pestle after she opened the door of their



35

house in answer to the appellant's call. She died on the spot. There was also

evidence that the appellant confessed to three other prosecution witnesses that he

had killed two persons and a third was unlikely to survive, his reason for killing

them being that they refused him food.

His statement to the Police substantially supported this testimony.



40

In the course of the trial a report, purportedly signed by a medical officer was

put in evidence under section 249(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The doc-

tor who wrote the report stated in it that he had examined the corpse and that the

deceased had black curly hair and two serious head wounds. He was not called

to give evidence. When the report was read and interpreted to the appellant he ex-



45

pressed disagreement with it as to the description of the deceased and defence

counsel made an application on his behalf that the maker of the document be called

as a witness. The trial Judge ruled that the interests of justice would not be served

by an adjournment of the case to enable the doctor to be called.

The trial Judge disbelieved the appellant's testimony that he struck and killed



50

two women and a man with a stick in repelling an attack on him by the villagers

and convicted him of murder.

15

20