HARO ABDU V. THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 03452 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Wed Feb 12, 2025

Suit Number: CA/G/21C/2024

CORAM

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

HARO ABDU

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

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

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Haro Abdu, along with two others, was charged before the High Court of Gombe State for the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery. According to the charges, on March 21, 2017, at Katam village in Akko Local Government Area of Gombe State, the Appellant and his co-accused, while armed with dane gun, cutlasses, knives, and sticks, invaded the house of one Alhaji Bello Ibrahim, attacked and robbed him of his money and other valuables.

The Appellant pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial. The Prosecution called six witnesses, with PW1 being the principal witness who testified that he was informed about the robbery via a phone call, after which he and two vigilante members followed footprints from the victim’s house to Kolmani village where they arrested the accused persons. During a subsequent search, a cap and wrapper allegedly belonging to the victim and his wife were recovered from the accused persons’ houses, although these items were never tendered in evidence.

The lower Court, in its judgment delivered on December 16, 2021, held that the offence of armed robbery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, it convicted the Appellant for the lesser offence of robbery simpliciter and conspiracy, and imposed custodial sentence and a fine of N20,000.00. Dissatisfied, the Appellant obtained leave to appeal on April 23, 2024, and filed his Notice of Appeal on April 26, 2024.

HELD

The appeal was allowed.
The Court held that the Prosecution failed to prove the offences of robbery and conspiracy against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision of the lower Court delivered on December 16, 2021, embodying the conviction of the Appellant and the sentence imposed upon him was set aside.
A verdict of discharge and acquittal was returned in respect of the two-count charge preferred against the Appellant.

ISSUES

Whether the evidence adduced by Prosecution was such that established its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant for the offences of robbery and conspiracy?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS – STANDARD OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt and if the evidence is strong against a man, as to leave only a remote probability in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence: “of course it is possible, but not in the least probable”, then the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.– Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – WHAT IT MEANS

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean or import beyond any degree of certainty. The term strictly means that within the bounds of the evidence adduced before the Court, no tribunal of justice would convict on it having regard to the nature of the evidence led in the case. It should be a proof that excludes all reasonable inference or assumption except that which it seeks to support. It must have clarity of proof that is readily consistent with the guilt of the accused person.– Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

METHODS OF PROVING CRIMINAL GUILT – THREE WAYS OF ESTABLISHING GUILT

It is settled law that there are three ways or methods of proving the guilt of an accused person, namely:

By reliance on a confessional statement of an accused person voluntarily made.
By circumstantial evidence.
By evidence of eyewitnesses. –Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – EFFECT OF RETRACTION ON ADMISSIBILITY

Even though the Appellant retracted the confessional statement at the trial, it is rudimentary law that the denial by an accused person that he did not make a statement or the retraction or resiling from the confessional statement does not ipso facto render the statement inadmissible in evidence. – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

TEST FOR DETERMINING VERACITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED

The test which has been laid down to ascertain the weight to be attached to a confessional statement is one that places a duty on the Court to examine the statement in the light of other credible evidence before the Court by inquiring into whether:

There is anything outside the confession to show that it is true.
It is corroborated.
The facts stated in the confession are true as far as can be tested.
The accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence.
The accused person’s confession is possible.
The confession is consistent with the other facts ascertained and proved. –Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

INGREDIENTS OF ROBBERY – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS TO BE PROVED

It would seem trite that the essential ingredients of the offence of robbery are as follows:

That stealing took place.
There was use of force or presence of threat of use of force.
The intention to retain stolen property. –Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

HEARSAY EVIDENCE – INADMISSIBILITY IN PROVING ELEMENTS OF CRIME

The PW1 did not witness the robbery incident, so his testimony that the cap and wrapper were items stolen from the robbery is contrived hearsay which cannot be accorded any probate value. – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

CONSPIRACY – NATURE AND PROOF OF CONSPIRACY

Now, conspiracy as an offence is the agreement by two (not being husband and wife) or more persons, to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

The offence of conspiracy is rarely or seldom proved by direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence and inference from certain proved acts. This is so because persons who agree to do an illegal act or achieve a legitimate end by illegal means do not invite a witness or witnesses to attest to their agreement.– Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

CONSPIRACY – PROOF THROUGH INFERENCE FROM SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE

The general principle of law is that a charge of conspiracy is proved either by leading direct evidence in proof of the common criminal design or it can be proved by inference derived from the commission of the substantive offence. – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

RESOLUTION OF DOUBT IN CRIMINAL TRIALS – BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO THE ACCUSED

The hornbook law is that in a criminal trial, where there is doubt as to the commission of a crime by an accused person, the doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused person, in this case, the Appellant. – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – BETTER TO ACQUIT TEN GUILTY PERSONS THAN CONVICT ONE INNOCENT PERSON

The law is now firmly settled by a plethora of authorities that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to suffer. More pungently, it is better to acquit ten guilty men than to convict an innocent man.– Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A

ENTITLEMENT TO FREEDOM UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY – LEGAL PRINCIPLE

It does not give the Court any joy to see offenders escape the penalty they richly deserve but until they are proved guilty under the appropriate law in our law Courts, they are entitled to walk about in the streets and tread the Nigerian soil and breathe the Nigeria air as free and innocent men and women. – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A