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

---

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW

EVIDENCE

APPEAL

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

FORGERY

SENTENCING

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, Ibrahim Mohammed, was convicted by the Borno State High Court for the offense of forgery under Section 363 of the Penal Code Law Cap. 102 Laws of Borno State 1994 and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the admissibility of the evidence used against him and the severity of the sentence.

The case arose when a customer lodged a complaint about a discrepancy in a payment transaction. The appellant, along with two other co-accused (staff of the Borno State Geographic Information Service), was involved in altering financial documents, which led to their trial for forgery and conspiracy. During the trial, the prosecution tendered several exhibits, including the alleged forged bank statement (Exhibit A) and the original statement (Exhibit B). The trial court found the appellant guilty based on this evidence.

 

---

HELD

---

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s judgment. The court ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution was admissible, and the conviction for forgery was valid. Additionally, the court found no reason to interfere with the three-year sentence imposed by the trial court, considering the appellant’s role in the crime and the maximum sentence of fourteen years prescribed by law for forgery.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial court was correct in admitting Exhibits A and E tendered by the prosecution and convicting the appellant based on these documents?

2. Whether the sentence of three years’ imprisonment without an option of fine was excessive given the appellant’s status as a first-time offender and a young person?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF OF FORGERY – ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH FORGERY

---

“To prove the offense of forgery, the prosecution must show that the accused made a false document with the intent to deceive, and that the document was intended to be acted upon as genuine to the detriment of another. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: KADIRI V. STATE (2022) LPELR-57316 (CA)

Application to Facts: The court held that the prosecution successfully established that the appellant forged the bank statement (Exhibit A), intending to deceive and mislead.

 

---

ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – COMPARISON OF FORGED AND ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

---

“Documentary evidence, particularly where forgery is alleged, can be admitted if it is shown that the original and forged versions differ in material respects. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: GARBA V. FRN (2022) LPELR-57199 (CA)

Application to Facts: The court accepted the comparison between Exhibit A (forged document) and Exhibit B (original bank statement), proving that the appellant altered the document to defraud.

 

---

PROOF OF INTENT – INTENT TO DECEIVE MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN FORGERY CASES

---

“Forgery requires the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused person not only made a false document but did so with the intent to deceive. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: MAIHAJA V. GAIDAM (2017) LPELR (SC)

Application to Facts: The court ruled that the appellant’s actions showed a clear intent to deceive, as the altered bank statement was presented with the purpose of misleading officials.

 

---

ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL STATEMENTS – WHEN RETRACTED CONFESSIONS CAN BE RELIED UPON

---

“A retracted confessional statement can be admitted if it is sufficiently corroborated by other evidence and found to be voluntary. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: OGUDO V. STATE (2011) LPELR-202

Application to Facts: The court upheld the admission of the appellant’s retracted statement (Exhibit E), as it was corroborated by other evidence, including the forged document and testimony from witnesses.

 

---

ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS – DOCUMENTS FROM PROPER CUSTODY

---

“Documents tendered in court must come from proper custody and must be relevant to the case at hand. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: DARLINTON V. STATE (2018) LPELR-43850 (SC)

Application to Facts: The court ruled that Exhibit E was properly admitted, as it was obtained during a police investigation and was relevant to the charges against the appellant.

 

---

SENTENCING – JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN DETERMINING SENTENCE

---

A trial court exercises its discretion in sentencing by considering the severity of the offense, the offender’s character, and other mitigating factors. An appellate court will not interfere with this discretion unless it was exercised arbitrarily or unjustly. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: SOWORE V. FRN (2022) LPELR-57439 (CA)

Application to Facts: The court held that the trial judge had exercised judicial discretion in sentencing the appellant to three years in prison, noting that the maximum penalty for forgery under the law was fourteen years.

 

---

FORGERY OF FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS – WHEN ALTERATION OF A FINANCIAL DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES FORGERY

---

Altering a financial document without authorization and with intent to mislead or defraud constitutes forgery under the Penal Code. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: ONI &ANOR V. OYEBANJI & ORS (2023) LPELR-60109 (CA)

Application to Facts: The appellant’s alteration of the UBA bank statement (Exhibit A) constituted forgery, as it was unauthorized and intended to deceive.

 

---

FORGED DOCUMENTS – CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF FORGED AND GENUINE DOCUMENTS

---

In forgery cases, a critical comparison of the forged document and the original is necessary to establish the differences and determine the intent behind the alteration. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: KADIRI V. STATE (2022) LPELR-57316 (CA)

Application to Facts: The court affirmed that the comparison of Exhibits A and B revealed significant differences, proving the appellant’s intent to deceive.

 

---

APPELLATE COURTS – WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH SENTENCE

---

“An appellate court will only interfere with a sentence if it is manifestly excessive or based on wrong principles.– Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: HOLLAND V. HOLLAND (1918) P. 273

Application to Facts: The court found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s sentence of three years imprisonment, as it was within the bounds of the law and not manifestly excessive.

 

---

EXPERT TESTIMONY – EXPERT OPINIONS ON FORGERY

---

In cases of forgery, expert testimony, particularly from financial institutions, is crucial to establishing the authenticity or falsity of documents. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: GARBA V. FRN (2022) LPELR-57199 (CA)

Application to Facts: The testimony of the UBA staff (PW2) was essential in proving that the document altered by the appellant was not an authentic bank statement.

 

---

APPELLATE REVIEW – SCOPE OF REVIEW ON EVIDENCE

---

“An appellate court will not disturb findings of fact by the trial court unless they are perverse or unsupported by the evidence. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: WOLUCHEM V. GUDI (1981) 5 SC 291

Application to Facts: The court upheld the trial court’s findings, as they were based on credible evidence and were not perverse.

 

---

MITIGATING FACTORS – FIRST-TIME OFFENDER STATUS AND SENTENCING

---

“While being a first-time offender can be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing, it does not automatically warrant a reduction in sentence, especially in serious offenses like forgery.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: KYARI V. FRN & ORS (2023) LPELR-60295 (CA)

Application to Facts: The court acknowledged the appellant’s first-time offender status but held that the three-year sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offense.

 

---

AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS – PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

---

“For a document to be admissible as genuine, the party tendering the document must establish its authenticity through credible testimony or comparison with known originals.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, J.C.A.

Precedent Applied: IDRIS V. STATE (2021) LPELR-54581 (CA)

Application to Facts: The court upheld the authenticity of the original bank statement (Exhibit B), as it was corroborated by the testimony of the UBA staff and contrasted with the forged

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1.Penal Code Law Cap. 102 Laws of Borno State 1994

2.Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT