Legalpedia Citation: (2014-12) Legalpedia (SC) 81721
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Dec 19, 2014
Suit Number: SC.233/2012
CORAM
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
FOLORUNSHO ALUFOHAI APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Accused/Appellant was charged along with one Sunday Ehimiyein at the trial Court on the 5th day of January, 1998 at Oluku town in the Iguobazuwa Judicial Division High Court of Edo State with the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robbery contrary to Section 5 (b) and punishable under Section 1(2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 398, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.The trial court found each of the accused persons guilty and they were convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court the Accused/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The lower court affirmed the decision of the trial court hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the court below was right in affirming the decision of the trial court which found the appellant guilty and convicted as charged ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONFESSION – SECTION 27 (2) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT RECOGNIZES THE RELEVANCE OF VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“In the Evidence Act, the procedural law, in particular, Section 27(2) recognizes the relevance of confessional statements in criminal proceedings if such statements are made voluntarily.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
IDENTIFICATION PARADE -WHEN IS IDENTIFICATION PARADE NECESSARY
“It is trite law, that identification parade is only necessary whenever there is doubt as to the ability of a victim to recognise the suspect who carried out or participated in carrying out the crime alleged or where the identity of the said suspect or an accused person is in dispute. But where there is certainty or no dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator of a crime, there will be no need for an identification parade to further identify the offender.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
IDENTIFICATION PARADE – MEANING OF IDENTIFICATION PARADE
“Identification parade, otherwise known as “line-up” is a police identification procedure in which a criminal suspect and other physically similar persons are shown to the victim or a witness to determine whether the suspect can be identified as the perpetrator of the crime. See; Agboola Vs. State(2013) 8 SCM 157; (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1366) 619; (2013) 54 NSCQR (Pt.ll) 1162; (2013) All FWLR (Pt.704) 139.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
CONFESSION – MEANING OF CONFESSION UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
“In the Evidence Act, Confession is said to be an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. See; Section 27(1) Evidence Act. Akpan Vs. State(2001) 7 SC (PH) 124; Nwachukwu Vs State(2002) 12 SCM 143; (2002) 7 SC (Pt.l) 124.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON -WAYS OF ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
“In criminal trials, the law is that the guilt of an accused person for the commission of the offence charged can be established by any or all of the following:-
(a) The confessional statement of the accused;
(b) Circumstantial evidence;
(c) Evidence of an eye witness.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY- INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION IN AN OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
“The law is trite and has long been settled, that for the prosecution to establish an offence of armed robbery against a suspect, the followings are required to be proved.
(i) That there was in fact robbery incident;
(ii) That the robbery was an armed robbery; and
(iii) That the accused person, in particular, was the armed robber.
See; Bozin V. State(1985) 7 NWLR (Pt.8) 465 at 467; Alabi Vs. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) 551; Olayinka Vs. State(2007) 4 SC (Pt.l) 210; (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) 561; (2007) 8 DVm 193.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
CONSPIRACY – MEANING OF CONSPIRACY
“Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act. It is a matter of inference, deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them and which hardly are ever confined to one place. Therefore, failure to prove a substantive offence does not make conviction for conspiracy inappropriate, as it is, in itself a separate and distinct offence, independent of the actual offence conspired to commit. See; Balogun V. A.G. Ogun State(2002) 4 SCM 23; (2002) 2 SC (Pt.ll) 89; (2002) 2 SCNJ 196.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – PURPORT OF IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – DUTY OF THE COURT WHEN IT IS CONFRONTED WITH IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
“Identification evidence is evidence tending to show that the person charged with an offence is the same as the person who was seen committing the offence. Therefore whenever the trial court is confronted with identification evidence, it is expected to ensure and be satisfied that the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused before the court was the person who actually committed the offence with which he is standing trial. See; Patrick Ikemson Vs. State(1989) 1 CLRN 1; Agboola Vs. State(supra).”PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION – AN EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION MADE VOLUNTARILY AMOUNTS TO AN ADMISSION OF GUILT
“It is trite law that where an extra judicial confession has been proved to have been made voluntarily and it is positive and unequivocal and amounts to an admission of guilt, such confession will suffice to ground a finding of guilt regardless of the fact that the maker resiles therefrom or retracted it altogether at the trial. See; Egboghonome VsThe State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 383.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act 2011 (as amended)
Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 398
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990