EMMANUEL JAMES V. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-05) Legalpedia 00587 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

Thu May 25, 2023

Suit Number: CA/K/322B/C/2020

CORAM

AMINA AUDI WAMBAI JCA

MOAHAMMED BABA IDRIS JCA

Muslim Sule Hassan JCA

PARTIES

EMMANUEL JAMES

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On the 24th November 2019, PW2 (the victim) was stopped at Goska by the Appellant and the co-defendants, to lift them to Ungwan fari. Enroute to ungwan Maikaya, he realized that a wire had been hanged round his neck. As he struggled to stop the bike with the wire still hanged around his neck, they all fell from the bike in different directions. He attempted to raise the motorcycle but was chased off with a knife by the Appellant. The Appellant and two co-defendants were later handed over to the police, after the two others were identified by the Respondent and confessed to the commission of the crime at the village head palace where they in turn later brought out the Appellant, after they were subjected to series of questions. The Appellant stated that he was the one with the knife and brought it out on his volition.

The in his defense at the trial court claimed that he was in his house the night the offence was committed, as he was sick. He was invited by the youth chairman in the morning to the village square and he was accused alongside two others on the issue of a motorcycle theft. He and the two co-defendants denied the allegation, despite the beating they were given. They were later handed over to the police.

The Appellant was convicted on the charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment while being discharged of the charge of armed robbery. He was dissatisfied by the decision hence the instant appeal

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether having regards to the evidence adduced before the lower court, the Respondent proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt to have entitled the verdict of guilty against the appellant?

Ø Whether the learned judge was right or justified in placing reliance on exhibits a, b, c, d and d1, the alleged confessional statements of the appellant and his co-defendants in convicting the appellant?

Ø Whether the learned trial judge was right to have ordered the appellant to pay compensation in the sum of ₦224,000 to the PW2?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN OF PROOF AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

The age long principle of law is that the prosecution always bears the burden of proof and the standard of proof of a criminal offence is proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction. However, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not proof to the hilt. It is not proof beyond all iota of doubt. Where all the essential ingredients of the offence charged have been proved or established by the prosecution, the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, proof beyond reasonable should not be stretched beyond reasonable limit. See ADEKOYA v. STATE (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt.1565) 343. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

CONSPIRACY – PROVING THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy is a complete offence of its own once established as it is immaterial whether all the accused were physically and all present in the actual execution of the conspiracy hatched. See MATHIAS GARUBA IDOKO v. THE STATE (2013) LPELR-22815 (CA) Page 17.

According to SANUSI, JSC in GABRIEL OGOGOVIE v. THE STATE (2016) LPELR-40501 (SC) Page 60 paragraphs C-D. ‘’Then on the offence of criminal conspiracy, I must emphasize that the offence of conspiracy is normally inferred from the attitude of the accused person, facts and circumstances of each given case. It needs not be proved through direct evidence, as it is often difficult or impossible to get such direct evidence.’’

For the prosecution to succeed in proving the offence of conspiracy, it must prove the conspiracy as described in the charge and that the accused/defendant were engaged in it or prove the circumstances from which the judge may presume or infer it. It may not always be proved by direct evidence as it is generally a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts and conducts of the parties accused, done or carried out in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them. See IKEMSON v. STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

COMPONENTS OR ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENCE – WAYS OF PROVING THE COMPONENTS OR ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENCE

The prosecution is under a duty to prove the components or elements of the offense for which the Accused/Defendant is charged. This can be proved vide any of the following methods viz:

By evidence of an eye witness or witnesses;

Through the confessional statement of the accused or Defendant;

Through circumstantial evidence.

See the case of S.S. YONGO & ANOR v. COP (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 257) 36 at 50.

The criteria for determining the truth or weight to attach to a confessional statement before a court can convict on same was clearly stated by the Apex Court in the case of WAHAB ALAO V. THE STATE (2019) LPELR-47856 (SC) Per AKA’AHS, JSC page 22 that ‘’When a confessional statement is admitted in evidence but later retracted, the trial Court should test its truthfulness and veracity by examining the statement in the light of other credible evidence to determine what weight to attach to the statement by considering the following:-

(a) Whetherthere is anything outside the confession to show that it is true. (b) Whether it is corroborated.

(d)Whether the accused person had the opportunity to commit the offence.

(e) Whether theconfession is possible.

(f) Whether it is consistent with other facts ascertained and proved at the trial. See: Dawa v. State (1980) 8-11 SC 236; Osetola v State (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 251.’’ – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

STATEMENT – WHETHER A LEGAL PRACTITIONER MUST BE PRESENT WHEN THE STATEMENT OF A SUSPECT IS RECORDED

The question whether a legal practitioner must be present or any of the persons mentioned in Section 39 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Kaduna State 2017 when Statement of a Suspect is recorded, has been settled by the recent decision of this Court in the case of THE STATE v. DAVID MUSA (2020) LPELR-51302 (CA) Per HUSSAINI, JCA at pages 26-33, paragraphs A-B where His Lordship said: ‘’The use of the word ‘’may’’ in Section 39 (b) of the law can only be interpreted as permissive in the sense that any request by an accused person who volunteers to make a statement to the Police only in the presence of his counsel, should not be lightly refused. On the other hand the body or authority whose statutory duty it is to record the statement of accused person cannot be held to ransom in the discharge of its duties merely because counsel was not in attendance at the time when the accused volunteered to make a statement. Such a statement is not rendered invalid on that account. That is not the purport of the provision of Section 39 (b) of the Kaduna State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2017. The word ‘’may’’ should be given its ordinary and natural meaning and should be so interpreted.’’

The case of NNAJIOFOR v. FRN (Supra) relied upon by the Appellant was decided earlier. The decision of this Court in THE STATE v. MUSA (Supra) is the current authority on the matter. –Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

COMPENSATION – POWER OF THE COURT TO AWARD COMPENSATION WHILE IN EXERCISE OF ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

These proceedings were clearly in exercise of the powers conferred to the learned trial Judge by Section 330(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJA) of Kaduna State which is the relevant provisions of the law which governed the powers of the trial High Court in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction to award compensation in addition to any sentence imposed on the defendant convicted and sentenced by it. The relevant provisions of the law in this respect is Section 330(1) (a) of ACJA which provides:- ‘’A Court may, within the proceedings or while passing judgment, order the defendant or convict to pay a sum of money:

(a) As compensation to any person injured by the offence, irrespective of any other fine or other punishment that may be imposed or that is imposed on the Defendant or convict, where substantial compensation is in the opinion of the Court recoverable by civil suit…’’ Thus on the correct interpretation of Section 330 (1) (a) of ACJA, the award or order of compensation made by the trial Court in the sum of N224,000.00 (Two Hundred and Twenty Four Thousand Naira) against the Appellant after convicting him of the offence of conspiracy to commit Robbery under Section 6 (b) of the Robbery and Firearms Act, 2004, was quite in order having been made within the powers of that Court under the law. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA