Legalpedia Electronic Citation: LER [2018]SC. 217/2013
AREAS OF LAW:
Appeal, Criminal Law And Procedure, Law Of Evidence, Practice And Procedure, Words And Phrases
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant and one other were charged before the High Court of Imo State, on a one count charge of armed robbery contrary to Section 1(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R.11 Vol. 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The Appellant and another while armed with an iron rod and a gun, robbed one Mrs. Keke Lina Chinwe of the sum of N200, 000.00 and other valuables. They both pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called three witnesses and tendered six exhibits while the accused persons testified in their own defence and called four witnesses. PW1 identified the Appellant by the torch light held by one of them and by the moonlight when they pulled the window louvers but she did not mention the names of the accused persons to her neighbours after the incident but to the police after she returned from the hospital. At the conclusion of the trial, both accused persons were found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. The Appellant, who was the 2nd accused person at the trial court appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal, but same was dismissed. Still dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, the Appellant has further appealed to this court contending that the Appellant failed to mention the names of the persons who robbed her at the earliest opportunity.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
RATIONES
BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES
“It is hardly necessary to restate the law that in criminal proceedings the prosecution has a duty to prove the charge against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. It is equally trite that the general burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout the trial and does not shift. See: Woolmington Vs D.P.P (Pt.975) 100; Abokokuyanro Vs The State (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 520. Even where an accused person pleads guilty to the charge, the prosecution is not relieved of the burden of establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. See: Aigbadion Vs The State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt.666) 686 @ 704 B-C; Ameh Vs The State (1978) 6-7 SC 27”. PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
CHARGE OF ARMED ROBBERY – INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO ESTABLISH A CHARGE OF ARMED ROBBERY
“In order to establish a charge of armed robbery, the prosecution must prove the following beyond reasonable doubt:
See: Bozin Vs The State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465: Ikemson Vs The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.110) 455: Okosi Vs A.G. Bendel State (1989^ 2 SC (Pt. l)126: Emeka Vs The State (2014) 6-7 sc (pt.1) 64”. PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
ONUS OF PROOF – INSTANCE WHEN THE PROSECUTION IS SAID TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“Where the prosecution leads credible, compelling and unequivocal evidence fixing the accused person at the scene of crime as a participant, it would have discharged the onus of proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where the eye witness account does not meet this quality of evidence, it cannot sustain a conviction. See: Anekwe Vs The State (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt.1415) 353”. PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN,J.S.C
IDENTIFICATION OF AN ACCUSED – DUTY OF COURTS WHEN RELYING ON IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE OF AN ACCUSED BY A WITNESS
“The importance of correctly identifying the perpetrator of a crime in a criminal trial cannot be overemphasised. This is because not only his liberty, but in the case of a capital offence, his life, is at stake. In The State Vs Aibangbee (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.84) 548 @ 590 D-E, His Lordship Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC opined thus:
“ …..identification is a whole series of facts and circumstances for which a witness or witnesses associate a defendant with the commission of the offence charged. It may consist of or include evidence in form of finger prints, handwriting, palm prints, voice, identification parade, photographs or the recollection of the features of the culprit by witnesses who saw him in the act of commission which is called in question or a combination of two or more of these. Where evidence of the recollection of the witness of the features of the culprit is relied upon, it must be very cautiously regarded by the courts for fear of mistaken identification. But fear of mistaken identification could be removed by evidence such as that the indentifying witness gave full and correct description of the accused person to the police at the earliest opportunity after the commission of the offence” (Underlining mine for emphasis).
See also: Archibong Vs The State 12006) 14 NWLR (Pt.1000) 349; Eyisi Vs The State (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.691) 555”. PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN,J. S.C
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – DUTY OF COURTS WHERE THE IDENTITY OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IS IN ISSUE
“The decisions of this court are all to the effect that where the identity of an accused person is in issue, the court must not only warn itself but must meticulously examine the evidence proffered to see whether there are any weaknesses capable of endangering or rendering worthless any contention that the accused was sufficiently recognised by the witness. See: Ndidi Vs The State (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052)633 @ 651-652 H-A: R Vs Turnbull and Ors (1976) 3 AER 549: Ikemson Vs The State (supra)”. PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN,J.S.C
“RECOGNITION” AND “IDENTIFICATION” – DISTINCTION BETWEEN “RECOGNITION” AND “IDENTIFICATION”
“In Ndidi Vs The State (supra) at 653 B-F, His Lordship Aderemi, JSC made a distinction between “recognition” and “identification” as follows:
“Recognition…..presupposes prior knowledge of the appellant before 4.1.00. but identification connotes knowledge of the person of the appellant acquired by PW1 for the first time on the day of the incident”
His Lordship noted that “recognition is one of the guidelines laid down in R.Vs Turnbull (supra) wherein it was held inter alia:
“Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger, but even when the witness is purporting to recognise someone whom he knows, the jury should be reminded that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made”
IDENTIFICATION OF AN ACCUSED – DUTY OF AN EYE WITNESS TO A CRIME IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“In the ordinary course of things it is expected that where an eye witness to a crime claims to have known the perpetrators prior to the commission of the offence, he would mention this fact to the Police at the earliest opportunity. Where he fails to do so, the court must be cautious in accepting evidence given later which implicates the accused person. See: Onuoha Vs The State (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 23 @ 43-44 H-A: Okiemute Vs The State (2016) LPELR-40639 (SC) @ 52-53 D-A: Ibrahim Vs The State (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1469) 164 & 189-190 F-C; Adeyoye Vs C. 0. P. (1959) WRNLR 100”. PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN,J. S.C
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF FAILURE OF AN EYE WITNESS TO MENTION THE NAMES OF HER ASSAILANTS AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
“The failure of the eye witness, PWI, to mention the names of her assailants at the earliest opportunity is fatal to the prosecution’s case. See: Ibrahim Vs The State (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt.1469) 164 @ 189 – 190 F -C; Kalu Vs The State (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 90) 503; Isah Vs The State (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 285; Adeyoye Vs C.O.P. (Supra). PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN,J.S.C
EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE WITNESS – WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE WITNESS CAN ESTABLISH A PROSECUTION’S CASE
“Yes, it is trite law that the evidence of one single witness can seal the case for the Prosecution; but it is not as simple as it sounds. The evidence of that one witness must be credible and acceptable – see Adelumola V. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pi. 73) 683, Akpabio V. State (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 359) 635, and Onafowakan V. The State (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt 61) 538, wherein Oputa, JSC, aptly observed: One solitary credible witness can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt. But if the evidence of that solitary witness is either incredible – – or doubtful given all the surrounding circumstances then the appellate Court should either hold that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt or that it will be unsafe to convict on the evidence and either way the appeal should be allowed”. PER A.A.AUGIE, J.S.C
STATUTES REFERRED TO:
Criminal Code
Evidence Act, 2011
Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap. Rll Vol.14 LFN 2004