CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

AKINLO IFEDAYO APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

None

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

APPEAL, COURTS, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and three others were arraigned before the Ondo State High Court, sitting at Akure on a three count charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery and receiving stolen property. The Prosecution’s case was that the Appellant along with the co-accused and others at large, while armed with guns and offensive weapons, robbed one Dr. Obanoyen on the 12th November, 2011 at his house in Owo, Ondo State, and carted away laptops, handsets and money. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and stated that all he knew was that there was a fight between his landlord’s son and two boys of his co-tenant. The learned trial judge after considering the case of parties before it, held that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Accused persons conspired to commit armed robbery and did commit armed robbery contrary to Section I (2) (a) and Section 6 (b) of the Robbery and Firearms Act (Special Provisions) Act Cap 311, Vol. 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The 2nd – 4th Accused persons were guilty as charged and sentenced to death by hanging or by firing squad. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the decision of the trial Court was affirmed by the Court. Further aggrieved by the decision of the Courts, the Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the trial Court and the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the Respondent proved the charges against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt in view of the nature and quality of the evidence adduced before it by the Respondent?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – STATUS OF A STATEMENT MADE BY AN ACCUSED PERSON TO THE POLICE

---

“But it is a well-established principle that the statement of the Accused to the Police is considered part of the case for the Prosecution, whether it contains a confession or not, and whether the Accused Person resiles it at trial or not – see Egboghonome V. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 383 SC.”

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- TESTS TO BE APPLIED BY A TRIAL COURT BEFORE CONVICTING AN ACCUSED PERSON ON HIS RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“The Court can convict on the retracted confessional statement of the Accused Person, but before this is done, a trial Court is enjoined to evaluate the confession and his testimony at the trial as well as other evidence adduced. This would entail the trial Court examining the new version of events presented by the Accused Person that is different from his retracted confession, and then ask the following –
Is there is anything outside the confession, which shows that if may be true?
Is it is corroborated in anyway?
Are the relevant statements of fact made in it most likely true as for as they can be tested?
Did the Accused have an opportunity to commit the offence?
Is the confession possible?
Is the confession consistent with other facts, which have been ascertained and established?
These are tests to be applied to a confession, as suggested by Ridley, J., in Rex V. Sykes (1913) 18 CR. App. R. 233, and the tests approved in Kanu V. The King 14 WACA 30, have been applied by this Court in a long line of decided cases, including Ogudu V. State (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt 1278) 1 SC.
In effect, where a confessional statement is the only evidence the trial Court would find to convict, particularly where it has been retracted, the trial Court should at least advice itself as to that fact, and look for corroboration no matter how slight. More importantly, it must satisfy itself that the statement was free, voluntary and properly taken and that it passed the six tests laid down in Rex v. Sykes (supra).”

---

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – MEANING OF IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

---

“Identification evidence is evidence tending to show that a person charged with an offence is the same as the person, who was seen committing the offence. However, as the Court below pointed out, identification parade is not a sine qua non for identification in all cases where there is other evidence leading conclusively to the identity of the perpetrators of the offence – see Ikemson V. State (supra), (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 SC, wherein this Court held that an identification parade is only essential in the situations:
Where the victim did not know the Accused before;
Where the victim was confronted by the offender for a very short time;
Where the victim, due to time and circumstances, might not have had opportunity of observing features of the Accused.
Karibi-Whyte, JSC, also explained in Ikemson’s Case that;
In such a situation, a proper Identification will take into consideration description of the Accused given to the Police shortly after the commission of the offence, the opportunity the victim had for observing the Accused, and what features of the Accused noted by the victim and communicated to the Police, marks him out from other persons.
In his Judgment in that case, Oputa, JSC, aptly observed –
Where a witness first acquaintance with the Accused is during the commission of the offence, there, an Identification parade may be held. But such a parade is not fool proof. It is not a guarantee against the usual errors of observation, errors of recognition or errors in reconstruction. – – – Learned counsel, by purposeful cross-examination, should endeavor to expose the errors of observation, of recognition, of resemblance, etc. Identification parade is not just the answer. The trial Court should be satisfied that the evidence of identification proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused before the Court was the person, who committed the offence charged.

---

IDENTIFICATION PARADE- MEANING OF IDENTIFICATION PARADE

---

“As Ariwoola, JSC, aptly stated in Tirimisiyu Adebayo V. State (2014) LPELR-22988(SC), an identification parade is a Police identification procedure in which criminal suspect and other physically similar persons, are shown to the victim or witness to determine whether the suspect can be identified as the perpetrator or one of the perpetrators of the crime. It is otherwise called and referred to as “line up” – see also Folorunsho Alufohai V. The State (2014) LPELR – 24215 (SC)”.

---

IDENTIFICATION PARADE- ESSENCE OF IDENTIFICATION PARADE

---

“The essence of the identification parade is, therefore, to enable an eye witness to the commission of the crime, who never knew the person accused of the crime before, but had some degree of encounter with the person during the commission of the crime or at the scene of the crime, to pick him out from amongst other people in the “line up”.

---

IDENTIFICATION PARADE- INSTANCE WHERE IDENTIFICATION PARADE WILL BE NECESSARY

---

“As the Court below rightly said, identification parade should never be conducted for purely cosmetic reasons. An identification parade becomes a necessity when there is a need to establish the identity of a suspect, and the aim is to make sure that the actual offender is the one arrested.
There are many cases where an identification parade is of no use whatsoever, such as when a suspect is arrested at the scene of the crime; when the suspect is well-known to the victim or witness; and when evidence adduced is sufficient to establish that the suspect is, indeed, the person that committed the crime – see Jua V. State (20)0) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 217 SC, Archibong V. State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt.1000) 349 SC, Eyisi V. State (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt 691) 555 SC.”

---

EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS – DUTY OF A PARTY WHO DOES NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS

---

“It is settled that when a witness testifies on a material fact in controversy in a case, the other Party, if he does not accept that it is true, should cross-examine him or at least show that he does not accept the evidence as true, and where he fails to do either, the Court can, and will take his silence as acceptance that he does not dispute same – see Simon V. State (2017) LPELR – 41988 (SC) and Oforlete V. State (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 681) 515 SC where Achike, JSC, said –
The noble art of cross-examination constitutes a lethal weapon in the hands of the adversary to enable him effect the demolition of the case of the opposing party. It is, therefore, good practice for counsel not only to put across his client’s case through cross-examination, he should, as a matter of the utmost necessity, use the same opportunity to negative the credit of that witness, whose evidence is under fire.

---

CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS- NATURE OF CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS THAT A COURT WOULD ACT ON

---

“The position of the law on the issue of contradictions in the evidence of witnesses that testify in Court is well-settled; it is not every minor contradiction in evidence that matters. For a trial Court to disbelieve a witness for the said reason, the contradiction in his evidence must be on a material point – see Kalu V. The State (1988) 4 NWLR (PT. 90) 503 SC.
And Ochemaje V. State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 57, where this Court per Tobi, JSC, eloquently explained that –
Although witnesses see and watch the same event they may narrate it from different angles, in their individual peculiar focus, perspective or slant. This does not – – – mean that the event that they are narrating did not take place. It only means most of the time that the event took place, but what led to the event was given different interpretations, arising from the senses of sight and mind dictated by their impressions and idiosyncrasies. That is why the law says that contradictions, which are not material or substantial, will go to no Issue. The main interest of the Court is that the witnesses are in union or unison as to the happening of the event but gave different versions in respect of the peripheral surrounding the event.

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- DUTY OF A COURT BEFORE CONVICTING ON RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“The law is settled that the Court can convict on the retracted confessional statement of an accused person but before it does this, the trial Court is enjoined to evaluate the confession and find out if the statement is corroborated and whether there is anything outside the confession which shows that it may be true. See Egboghonome v. C. O. P (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 383: Afolabi v. State (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1524) 497; Mohammed v. State (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 303.”

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Robbery and Firearms Act (Special Provisions) Act Cap 311, Vol. 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT