Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 81341
In the Court of Appeal
Tue Feb 17, 2015
Suit Number: CA/A/513C/2013
CORAM
PARTIES
ITA PAUL APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 3rd Accused/Appellant together with 2 others now at large were charged with the offences of conspiracy, robbery, and culpable homicide punishable with death at the High Court of Kogi State sitting in Lokoja. The 3rd Accused/Appellant along with the 2 others at large were said to have agreed on or about the 3rd day of May 2011, to rob and did rob one Captain Dickson Ebiye of his GMC Jeep and formed a common intention to cause the death of his pregnant wife Kemi Simon by stuffing her mouth with clothing materials thereby suffocating her to death.
The 3rd Accused/Appellant was tried, convicted and consequently sentenced for the offences he committed, however displeased with his conviction by the trial court, he has appealed.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
1.Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced at trial, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.?
2.Whether the learned trial judge was right in relying on the confessional statement of the appellant.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONVICTION BASED ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – THE COURT CAN SAFELY CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON BASED ON HIS OWN CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WITHOUT CORROBORATION EVEN IF IT IS RETRACTED SO LONG AS IT IS FREE AND VOLUNTARY.
“A Court is entitled to convict an accused person on his free and voluntary confession even if it was retracted, without corroboration, provided that it is direct, positive and properly proved as to its truthfulness. See Nwaeze Vs. State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 428) 1 and Solala Vs. State (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 937) 460.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – MEANING OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“A confessional statement is one that was made voluntarily by an accused person who has been charged for committing an offence, to another person, admitting his guilt. It is relevant and admissible and tends to be the best evidence in the hands of the prosecution.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY – INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION IS EXPECTED TO PROVE TO SUSTAIN A CHARGE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER SECTION 97 OF THE PENAL CODE.
“For the offence of criminal conspiracy contrary to section 97 of the Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the ingredients of the offence which are –
(1) an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done, an illegal act or some act which is not illegal, but by illegal means;
(2) where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence that some act besides the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the agreement; and
(3) that each of the accused persons individually participated in the conspiracy.
See Abdullahi Vs. State (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115) 203; Kaza Vs. State (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 125 and Abiodun Vs. State (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1299) 394.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – IT IS DESIRABLE TO HAVE EVIDENCE WHICH TENDS TO MAKE THE CONFESSION TRUE JUST TO ELIMINATE ANY FORM OF DOUBT.
“It is desirable and is in keeping with the elimination of doubt, to have outside the confessional statement, some evidence, no matter how slight, which tends to make it probable, that the confession was true, when the accused person retracts it – Nwaebonyi Vs. State (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 343) 130.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
PROOF OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY – IN PROVING THE OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO LEAD DIRECT EVIDENCE.
“In view of the fact that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, there is hardly direct evidence of it, and the courts are often left to infer from all the circumstances of the case – Ogedengbe Vs. State (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1421) 344- It is therefore not necessary to lead direct evidence.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
OFFENCE OF ROBBERY – INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION IS EXPECTED TO PROVE TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION IN AN OFFENCE OF ROBBERY – SECTION 298 (B) (II) OF THE PENAL CODE
“In respect of robbery contrary to section 298(b)(ii) of the Penal Code, the ingredients of the offence which the prosecution must prove, are –
(1) that the accused person committed theft;
(2) that in order to commit the theft, or whilst committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by the theft, the accused person voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to some person, death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. See Olayinka Vs. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt 1040) 561 and Ehot Vs. State (1993) 5 SCNJ 65.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED ONCE THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“Once the prosecution leads credible evidence and the court is satisfied that all the ingredients have been proved, the charge would have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and a conviction will ensue. See Alor Vs. State (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 501) 511 and Bello Vs. State (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043)564.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WAYS TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTHFULNESS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
“Some guidelines have been evolved in order to assess and ascertain the truthfulness of confessional statements, whether they have been resiled from, or not –
1. Is there any evidence outside the confessional statement to show that it is true?
2. Was the confessional statement corroborated?
3. Were the relevant statements of fact stated in the confessional statement true as can be tested?
4. Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence?
5. Was the confession possible?
6. Was the confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and established? See Dawa Vs. State (1980) 8 – 11 S.C 236; Madjemu Vs. State (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 718) 349; Ubierho Vs. State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 919) 644 and Agagaraga Vs. State (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1019) 586.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
PROOF OF THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH – INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN A CHARGE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH.
“For culpable homicide punishable with death, the ingredients which the prosecution must prove are –
(1) that the deceased had died;
(2) that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused person; and
(3) That the act or omission of the accused person which caused the death of the deceased, was intentional, with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable and not likely consequence.
See Ochuba Vs. State (2011) 12 SCNJ 526 at 539, and Igabele Vs. State (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 975) 100.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – ONLY ONE ISSUE CAN BE FORMULATED FROM A GROUND OF APPEAL.
“It is not allowed, to formulate more than one issue out of one ground of appeal.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHERE MORE THAN ONE ISSUE IS DISTILLED FROM A GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS INCOMPETENT
“In Drexel Energy And Natural Resources Ltd & Ors Vs. Trannational Bank Ltd & Ors, (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 388 at 424, the Supreme Court in referring to ACB Plc Vs. Odukwe (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 276) 804; (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 911) 67 held that It is settled that no party to an appeal, is allowed to formulate more than one issue from one ground of appeal “If that is done, the issue is incompetent and should be struck out, otherwise it will be a worthless academic exercise to consider the issue – Ali Vs. Alesinloye (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 177 at 212 and MOJEKWU VS, IWUCHUKWU (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 883) 196”. PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES – WHERE ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF AN OFFENCE ARE NOT PROVED, IT WILL RESULT IN AN ACQUITTAL, AND THE BURDEN OF PROVING SUCH INGREDIENTS LIES ON THE PROSECUTION.
“In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proving the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. It has the duty to adduce credible evidence to the extent that the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, as to the guilt of the accused person. All the ingredients of the offence charged must be proved, otherwise an acquittal, will be the inevitable result – Hassan Vs. State (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 709) 286; Bakare Vs. State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 52) 579 and Uwagbie Vs. State (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt1031) 606.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1.Evidence Act 2011.
2.Penal Code