Area of Law:
APPEAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES

Summary of Facts
The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Delta State on a four count charge of Conspiracy to commit armed robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R 11 Volume 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, armed robbery punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R 11 Volume 14 Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 2004, armed robbery, punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R 11 Volume 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and Illegal possession of Firearms, punishable under Section 2 (3) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R 11 Volume 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. He was alleged to have robbed his victims’ at gun point of the sum of N 9,000.00 and a Nokia GSM telephone. At the trial, the counts were read and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty on each count. At the close of the Prosecutor’s case, the Appellant testified on his own behalf and raised the defence of alibi, without calling any witness. The trial Judge found the Appellant guilty; he was convicted and consequently sentenced to death. Being dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Dissatisfied, he has further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held
Appeal Dismissed

Issues for Determination

• Whether the lower court rightly affirmed the trial court’s decision that the prosecution proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt

Rationes
OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH TO GROUND A CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
“The salient ingredients of the offence of armed robbery which the prosecution must establish to ground conviction are as follows:-
(a) That there was a robbery or series of robbery incident(s)
(b) That the robbers were armed, and
(c) That the accused persons were the ones who committed the robbery.
See the cases of State v. Adedamola Bello & Ors. (1989) 1 CLRN 370 and Bozin v. The State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 8) 465 at 469.” PER J.A.FABIYI, J.S.C

BURDEN OF PROOF – THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS, IS ON THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“It has now become trite that the prosecution has the burden at all times in criminal matters to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. This requirement is as provided in section 135 (1) Evidence Act, 2011.” PER J.A.FABIYI, J.S.C

CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION – THE NATURE OF CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION THAT WILL BE FATAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL
“It must be stated at this point that contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution that will be fatal must be substantial. Minor or miniature contradiction which did not affect the credibility of witnesses may not be fatal. Contradiction must relate to the substance of the matter. Trivial contradiction should not vitiate a trial. See Ankwa v. The State (1969) 1 All NLR 133; Queen v. Iyanda (1960) SCNLR 595; Omidade v. Queen (1964) 1 All NLR 233 and Sele v. The State (1993) 1 SCNJ 15 at 22-23 (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 269) 276” PER J.A.FABIYI, J.S.C

ALIBI – MEANING OF ALIBI
“It should be stated clearly at this point that alibi, literally means elsewhere. It is a defence by which an accused person alleges that at the time when the offence with which he was charged was committed, he was elsewhere.” PER J.A.FABIYI, J.S.C

PLEA OF ALIBI – A PLEA OF ALIBI MUST BE RAISED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
“Notice of intention to raise the plea of alibi must be given by the accused at the earliest opportunity preferably, at the investigation stage to enable the prosecution investigate same. He must furnish his whereabouts and those with him at the material time of incident. Failure to investigate may lead to acquittal. See Yanor v. The State (supra), Queen v. Turner (1957) WRNLR 34; Bello v. Police (1956) SCNLR 113; Gachi v. The State (1973) 1 NMLR 331; Odu v. The State (supra) at 120; Ozaki v. The State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) 92; Adio v. The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 31) 714; Patrick Njovens v. The State (1973) NMLR 331 and Okoduwa v. The State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 76) 333.” PER J.A.FABIYI, J.S.C

NATURE OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION – THE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE ITS CASE AGAINST AN ACCUSED PERSON BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“It is now trite that in criminal prosecution in this country and indeed, on all Commonwealth countries, the onus is always in the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.” PER J.I.OKORO, J.S.C

DEFENCE OF ALIBI – THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI WILL NOT AVAIL AN ACCUSED PERSON WHERE HE WAS ARRESTED AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME
“Where there is evidence that an accused person was arrested at the scene of crime by persons who witnessed the commission of the crime, a belated defence of alibi will be of no moment”. PER J.I.OKORO, J.S.C

PROOF OF GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON WHERE THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IS IN ISSUE IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
“It is trite law that where the commission of a crime is in issue in any criminal proceeding, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. See: Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011: Woolmington Vs D.P.P. (19351 AC 462: Esangbedo Vs The State (19891 4 NWLR (Pt.1131 57: Udo Vs The State (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt.1001) 179: Michael Vs The State (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 361.” PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DOES NOT MEAN PROOF BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.” PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C

REASONABLE DOUBT – NATURE OF DOUBT THAT WILL JUSTIFY AN ACQUITTAL
“Reasonable doubt which will justify an acquittal is a doubt based on reason arising from evidence or lack of it. It is a doubt which a reasonable man/woman might entertain and which is distinct from fanciful or imaginary doubt. In otherwords, it is one which would cause a prudent and ordinary person to be cautious and hesitate before acting in matters of importance see Jua V. State (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt 1184) P.217 at 243. See also Olayinka V. State (2007) 9 NWLR (pt 1040) P.561 at 586, and Jibril V. Mil Admin Kwara State (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt 1021)P.357 at 383”. PER C.B.OGUNBIYI, J.S.C

ONUS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON LIES ON THE PROSECUTION
“It is in no doubt that the onus of proving the accused guilty squarely lies on the prosecution who must ensure that all forms of reasonable doubts are cleared”. PER C.B.OGUNBIYI, J.S.C

TRIVIAL AND MINOR INCONSISTENCIES IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS – EFFECT OF TRIVIAL AND MINOR INCONSISTENCIES IN A WITNESS EVIDENCE
“The law is settled in plethora of authorities that trivial and minor inconsistencies in the witnesses’ evidence would not normally have any adverse effect on the generality of the case before the trial court.” PER C.B.OGUNBIYI, J.S.C

DEFENCE OF ALIBI – A DEFENCE OF ALIBI CAN BE SUSTAINED WHEN IT IS PROVED THAT THE ACCUSED PERSON WAS ELSEWHERE WHEN THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED
“For a defence of alibi to sustain, it must be proved that one is somewhere else when the crime alleged was committed.” PER C.B.OGUNBIYI, J.S.C

“CONTRADICTION” – MEANING OF “CONTRADICTION”
“The word “contradiction”, traces its lexical roots to two Latin words, namely, “contra” and “dictum”, meaning “to say the opposite” see, Ikemson v State [1989] 3 NWLR (pt 110) 455, 479.” PER C.C. NWEZE, J.S.C

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES – NATURE OF CONTRADICTION IN THE TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES THAT WILL VITIATE A DECISION
“For contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses to vitiate a decision, they must be material and substantial. That is, such contradictions must be so material to the extent that they cast serious doubts on the case presented as a whole by the party on whose behalf the witnesses testify, or as to the reliability of such witnesses, Enahoro v Queen (1965) NMLR 265, endorsed in Ogun v Akinyele [2004] 18 NWLR (pt 905) 362, 392; Emiator v State [1975] 9-10 SC 112; Afolalu v State [2009] 3 NWLR (pt 1127) 160.” PER C.C.NWEZE, J.S.C

Statutes Referred To
Evidence Act, 2011
Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004