CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

LUKA UMARU

---

THE STATE

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Not Available

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was arraigned with two others, before the Adamawa State High Court on a three count charge of conspiracy to commit robbery while armed with offensive weapons, robbery while armed with offensive weapons, both punishable under the Robbery and Firearms Act and culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Sections 79 and 221(a) of the Penal Code. At the trial, the appellant and the two others pleaded not guilty to the three count charge. The extra judicial statements of the three accused persons were admitted in evidence after a trial within trial, while the statement of the Appellant was admitted in evidence without any objection from the defence. Upon the conclusion of the trial, the three accused persons were found guilty of the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery while armed with offensive weapon, contrary to Section 6(b) punishable under Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R11 Laws of the Federation 2004, robbery while armed with offensive weapons punishable under Section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R11 Laws of the Federation 2004 and culpable homicide punishable with death, contrary to Sections 79 and 221 (a) of the Penal Code respectively. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, appealed against his conviction and sentence for the offences charged.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Was the Trial Court not wrong when it relied solely on Exhibit “C – C1” which was retracted by the Appellant and lacks independent corroboration, in convicting and sentencing the Appellant? Was the Trial Court not wrong when it held that the Respondent proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt the offence of Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death? Was the Trial Court not wrong when it held that the Respondent proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt the offence of Culpable Homicide punishable with death, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death? Was the trial Court not wrong when it held that the Respondent proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt the offence of Armed Robbery, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT- ON WHOM LIES THE DUTY TO PROVE A ITS CASE “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT” – MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

---

“It is the duty of the prosecution in any and every criminal matter to prove its case “beyond reasonable doubt”. Such proof is not beyond all shadow or iota of doubt. See, Smart Vs. State (supra), State Vs. Onyeukwu (2004) LPELR – 3116 (SC) PP. 44 – 45, PARAS. G – E, Ezeani Vs. F.R.N. (2019) LPELR – 46800 (SC) P. 23, PARAS. A – C, Nwaturuocha Vs. The State (2011) 6 NWLR (PT. 1242) 170; (2011) 2 – 3 SC (PT. 1) P. 111; (2012) 6 NWLR (PT. 1242) 170 and Audu VS.FRN (2018) LPELR – 45642 (CA) PP. 32 – 33, PARAS. D – E. In Nwaturuocha Vs. The State (supra) his lordship, Fabiyi, JSC defined proof beyond reasonable doubt thus:
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. A degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability.”

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – IMPLICATION OF ADMITTING A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IN EVIDENCE WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM THE APPELLANT

---

“The position of the law is that when a confessional statement is admitted in evidence without objection from the appellant or his counsel, the implication is that the maker of the statement agrees with everything in the statement. It also means that the maker made the statement voluntarily and it is the truth on the issue of the role he played in the crime. By the provisions of Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011, a confessional statement is a direct acknowledgment of guilt once it is a voluntary admission of his participation in crime, it is a confession. It is the law that a voluntary confession of guilt made by an accused person if it is direct, positive and proved, is enough to warrant a conviction without any corroboration, contrary to the argument of the learned counsel to the appellant. Exhibit “C – C1” coming from the horse’s mouth so as to say is stronger than the evidence of an eye witness. See, Queen Vs. Itule (1967) 2 SC NLR P. 183, Aremu Vs. State (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 201) P. 1, Jimoh Yesufu Vs.State (1976). It is the lawthat an accused person can be convicted on his confessional statement alone, even where retracted without corroboration. See, Idowu Vs. State (2000) LPELR – 1429 (SC) PP. 44 – 45, PARAS. F – A, where his lordship, Wali, JSC stated the position of the law thus:
“……….. a mere retraction of a voluntary confessional statement by an accused person does not render it inadmissible or worthless and untrue in considering his guilt. See, R.V. Sykes (1913) 8 CR. APP. 233 and KANU VS. THE KING 14 WACA 30. If the confessional statement is satisfactorily proved, a conviction founded on it without more, will be sustained by an appellate court. See, THE Queen Vs. Obiasa (1962) 1 ALL NLR 645; Paul Onochie & 7 Ors Vs.The Republic (1966) NMLR 307; Obue Vs.The State (1976) 2 SC 141 and Jimoh Yesufu Vs.The State (1976) 6 SC 167.”
See, Mumuni & Ors Vs. State (1975) LPELR – 1926 (SC) P. 18 PARAS. D – E and Darlinton VS. FRN (2018) LPELR – 43850 (SC) PP. 17 – 18, PARAS. D – A.”

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT OF A VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“The important thing is that the confession has been found to be voluntarily made and true. In the present case, it is true in that the appellant and his counsel did not object to its being tendered, therefore it is voluntary and the question of its voluntariness did not arise which would have entailed a trial within trial. See, Egboghonome Vs. The State (1993) (supra), DEMO Oseni Vs.The State (2012) 5 NWLR (PT. 1293) 351, Achabua Vs. State (1976) LPELR – 63 (SC) P. 8, PARAS. A – C, Kopa Vs. State (1971) LPELR – 1702 (SC) PP. 3 – 4, PARA.E and John Vs. State (2019) LPELR – 46936 (SC) P. 17, PARAS. E – G.”

---

CONFESSION – WHETHER A RETRACTED EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A CONVICTION

---

“The position of the law is that once an extra judicial confession, as in the present has been proved to be made voluntarily; it amounts to the guilt of the accused/appellant. A conviction would be held to be good, irrespective of the fact that the accused person resiled or retracted in his testimony in court.”

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- IMPLICATION OF DISCHARGING AN ACCUSED PERSON MERELY ON A RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“Without sentiment, where a man has confessed to his crime, later at the trial changes his mind about the confession, walks away a free man merely because he had a change of mind, it would surely make a mockery of the trial and the criminal justice system. Allowing such a precedent to extra judicial confession of an accused person would not only be dangerous and make the society to be riddled with unimaginable crime and insecurity, it would open the flood gate of retraction of all confessional statements made by an accused person to the police to ensure his freedom by merely retracting his statement. This would certainly not be good or safe for the society.”

---

OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – INGREDIENTS THAT MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARMED ROBBERY

---

“In proof of the offence of conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery, the following ingredients must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
a.That there was an agreement or confederacy between the accused and others to commit the offence.
b.That in furtherance of the agreement or confederacy, the accused took part in the commission of the robbery or series of robberies.
c.That the robbery or each robbery was an armed robbery.
See, Usufu Vs. State (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1020) 94 AT 113 – 114, H – A, Okoh Vs. The State (supra), Adeyemo Vs. State (2010) LPELR – 3622 (CA) PP. 30 – 31, PARAS. F – B and Taiye Vs. State (2018) LPELR – 444 66 (SC) PP. 21 – 22, PARA. B. Conspiracy simply is an agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is illegal but, by illegal means. The mere agreement alone constitutes the offence of conspiracy and it is therefore immaterial to prove that the act was in fact committed. The essential element here to prove conspiracy to commit armed robbery lies in the agreement and association to do an unlawful thing or act which is forbidden by law. The accused person need not have knowledge of its unlawfulness. See, Obiakor Vs. The State (2002) 6 SC PT. II.33at 39/40 and Balogun Vs.Ag.Ogun State (2002) 2 SC (PT. 11) 89.”

---

PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY – WHETHER THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY CAN BE PROVED THROUGH DIRECT EVIDENCE

---

“On the other hand, the offence of conspiracy is often not proved through direct evidence but, the agreement or plot could be inferred from the facts of doing things towards achieving a common criminal goal. See, Clark Vs. The State (1986) 4 NWLR (PT. 35) 381; Odeneye Vs.State (2001) 1 SC. 1, Nwankwoala Vs.The State (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 339) 801 and Taiye Vs. State (2018) LPELR – 444 66 (SC) PP. 21 – 22, PARA. B.”

---

OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE – INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE

---

“The starting point would be: what is required to be proved by the prosecution for a conviction of culpable homicide. The ingredients are as follows:
(a)That the death of a human being has taken place.
(b)That the death has been caused by the accused;
(c)That the act of the accused was done with the intention of causing death or that the accused knew that death would be the probable consequence of his act.
See, Haruna Alhaji Galadima Vs. The State (2017) LPELR – 43469 (SC) PP. 19 – 20, PARAGRAPHS B – A, Oyakhire Vs. State (2005) LPELR – 11325 (CA) PP. 18 – 19, PARAGRAPHS E – A and Sani Vs. State (2017) LPELR – 43475 (SC) P.5, Paragraph SC – G.”

---

OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – INGREDIENTS THAT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY

---

“It is trite that for the offence of armed robbery to be established, the following ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
1.That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
2.That each robbery was an armed robbery.
3.That the accused took part in the robbery or robberies.
See, Bozin Vs. State (1985) LPELR – 799 (SC) P. 6, Paragraphs. B – D, Agugua Vs. The State (2017) LPELR – 42021 (SC) P. 39, Paragraphs A – C and Mohammed Vs. State (2019) LPELR – 46420 (SC) PP. 6 – 7, PARAGRAPH F.”

---

PRODUCTION OF OFFENSIVE WEAPON – WHETHER THE PROSECUTION IS BOUND TO PRODUCE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME

---

“In most cases, the culprits would easily dispose of their weapons of attack while on the run. See, Simon Vs. State (2017) LPELR 41988 (SC), P. 13 – 14, PARA. C and State Vs. Fadezi (2018) LPELR – 44731 (SC) P. 27 PARAS. D – G. In Esene Vs. State (2017) LPELR – 41912 (SC) P. 41, PARAS. A – E, his lordship, Ogunbiyi, JSC held thus:
“Further still and to show that the prosecution is not duty bound to produce the knife, there is no legal obligation on the prosecution to produce or tender the knife in evidence. The lower court was clear and could not be faulted on this point when it held at page 148 of the record and said: – “Let me mention here and now, that it is not the law that the firearms, or the offensive weapons used must be tendered in proof by prosecution to commission of armed robbery. This issue has since been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Fatai Olayinka Vs. The State 130 NSCQB 149at PAGES 162 – 163.” It is a settled principle therefore that the failure of the prosecution to tender the knife used by the appellant in attacking PW1 did not in any way water down the credible and unchallenged evidence that the appellant committed armed robbery against PW1 on 23/12/2006.”
See, also Abdulkadir Vs. State (2015) LPELR – 41841 (CA) PP. 36 – 37, PARAS. F – B.

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act, 2011|Penal Code|Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R11 Laws of the Federation 2004|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---