ANWAR SURAJO V. THE STATE (2018)

Background

Anwar Surajo appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Kano State delivered on 2014-01-06 in Charge No. K/168C/2011. The trial court had convicted him of culpable homicide punishable with death and sentenced him to death by hanging under the applicable provisions of the Penal Code. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant stabbed Basiru Hassan during an altercation. The deceased was found with a knife lodged in his chest and was bleeding profusely. He was taken to hospital, where he underwent surgery and medical treatment, but developed cardiopulmonary arrest and died three days after the stabbing, on 2010-11-21.

The appellant admitted stabbing the deceased but denied that his act caused the death. He argued that the death could have resulted from negligence or improper post-operative management, or from the cardiac arrest recorded in the medical report. He also challenged the reliance placed on a statement made by the deceased identifying him as the assailant, contending that the statement did not qualify as a dying declaration. In addition, his statement raised a possible claim of self-defence.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution established a causal link, beyond reasonable doubt, between the appellant’s stabbing of the deceased and the deceased’s eventual death.
2. Whether the evidence, including the medical report, eyewitness testimony, the deceased’s statement and the appellant’s statements, proved all the ingredients of culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the intervening surgery and hospital management broke the chain of causation.
4. Whether the trial court was obliged to consider the possible defence of self-defence disclosed by the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that once the prosecution proves that the accused inflicted a serious injury, subsequent medical treatment or surgery will not ordinarily relieve the accused of responsibility for the resulting death. The chain of causation remains intact where the treatment was a reasonable and proper response to the injury and there is no evidence that it was improperly administered or constituted an independent cause of death. The Court also applied the statutory presumption of regularity under section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, holding that the hospital’s surgery and management were presumed to have been regularly performed because no contrary evidence had been produced.

The Court further referred to section 314 of the Criminal Code, which provides a presumption that where a person dies within one year and one day of an injury caused by the accused, the accused is presumed to have caused the death and the deceased is presumed to have died from that injury. Although the charge arose under the Penal Code applicable in Kano State, the provision was considered relevant to the legal principles governing causation.

The court emphasised that the prosecution must establish a link between the accused’s act and the death beyond reasonable doubt. That burden was satisfied by the evidence showing that the appellant stabbed the deceased in vital areas—the chest, neck and head—causing severe bleeding, followed by hospitalisation, surgery, cardiac arrest and death. The nature and location of the injuries permitted the court to infer both causation and the requisite intention or knowledge. A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his actions.

Court Findings

The court distinguished Ahmed v. State, where the causal connection between a gunshot injury and a later death was held not to have been sufficiently established. In the present case, there was a medical report, eyewitness evidence of the knife wound and profuse bleeding, and evidence of the sequence of events from the stabbing to the deceased’s death. The cause of death could therefore be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and was not speculative.

The deceased’s statement to PW3 that, if he died, Anwar had stabbed him was treated as a dying declaration under section 40 of the Evidence Act. The deceased was found in a pool of blood with a knife protruding from his chest, and the circumstances indicated an awareness of imminent death. In any event, the court held that the conviction did not depend exclusively on the statement because the other evidence independently established the appellant’s responsibility.

The court also considered the appellant’s suggested self-defence. Although the defence had not been properly raised or addressed at trial, an appellate court must examine every possible defence disclosed by the evidence. The appellant alleged that the deceased had earlier attacked him with a horn, but he did not prove any injury, medical treatment or corroborating report. The evidence instead suggested that he had time to withdraw, obtain a knife and return to inflict the more serious injuries. Self-defence was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that the prosecution had proved the death of the deceased, that the appellant’s stabbing caused or materially contributed to that death, and that the appellant possessed the necessary intention or knowledge arising from the deliberate stabbing of vital parts of the body. The conviction and sentence of death by hanging imposed by the High Court of Kano State were affirmed.

Significance

The decision clarifies Nigerian criminal-law principles on causation in homicide cases. It confirms that an accused cannot escape liability merely because the victim survives long enough to undergo surgery or dies from a medical complication connected with the original injury. The relevant question is whether the accused’s act remained an operative and substantial cause of death and whether the intervening treatment was reasonable. The decision also demonstrates that causation may be proved by inference from the nature of the injury and the chronological sequence of events, while preserving the prosecution’s obligation to prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt. It further highlights the court’s duty to consider all defences reasonably disclosed by the evidence, even where counsel failed to present them adequately.