Legalpedia Citation: (2011-01) Legalpedia 64037 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
ABUJA
Fri Jan 14, 2011
Suit Number: SC.39/2009
CORAM
Aloma Mariam Mukhtar JSC
Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen JSC
Francis Fedode Tabai JSC
Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC
Muhammad Saifullah Muntaka-Coomassie JSC
PARTIES
MICHAEL EBEINWE
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, ROBBERY AND FIREARMS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was arraigned before the
Ogun State High Court, Ijebu-Ode Division on a charge of armed robbery. The
prosecution’s case was that on October 23, 2000, at Itele in the Ijebu-Ode
Judicial Division, the appellant hired Paul Umoke, a motorcycle operator, to
take him to his house. Upon reaching their destination at Atoyo Village along
Lagos-Benin Expressway Ijebu-Ife, the appellant attacked Paul Umoke with a
cutlass, inflicting injuries on him, and stole his Suzuki Motorcycle FR 50
valued at N100,000.00. The prosecution called three witnesses and tendered the
appellant’s confessional statement. The appellant denied making the
confessional statement voluntarily, claiming he was tortured by the police. The
trial court found the prosecution’s case proved beyond reasonable doubt and
convicted the appellant. Dissatisfied, he appealed to the Court of Appeal,
which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent decisions of both the trial court and Court of Appeal.
The conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.
The Court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUES
- Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant as required under Section 138 of the Evidence Act ?
- Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have affirmed the judgment of the trial court ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE – DISTINCTION BETWEEN MATERIAL AND MINOR CONTRADICTIONS
It is not every discrepancy
between what one witness says at one time and what he says at another that is
sufficient to destroy the credibility of the witness altogether. However, where
the discrepancy is at least enough to call for a mention by the judge, it
should appear on the record that he averted his mind to it and the reason for
believing the witness in spite of the discrepancy should also be stated. – Per Adio JSC
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does
not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the
community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of
justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote
possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it
is possible, but not in the least probable, the case is beyond reasonable
doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice. – Per Lord Denning
UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – PROBATIVE VALUE
The position of the law is that
evidence that is neither challenged nor debunked remains good and credible
evidence which should be relied upon by a trial judge, who would in turn
ascribe probative value to it. – Per Aloma Mariam Mukhtar JSC
DEFINITION OF ROBBERY – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
Robbery is theft or extortion by
force or inducing of fear by coercion. Therefore, theft, in all its
ramification is robbery if, in order to commit the theft or in committing the
theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the
theft, the offender/accused for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to
cause any person’s death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death
or hurt or instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. – Per Ibrahim Tanko
Muhammad JSC
PROOF OF ARMED ROBBERY – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
For the prosecution to secure
conviction on the offence of robbery (armed robbery), it has the onus of
proving beyond reasonable doubt that:
- robbery has taken place;
- the
robbery was an armed robbery;
iii. the accused person participated in the
robbery.- Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC
CONCURRENT FINDINGS – WHEN SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE
This court does not normally interfere with such a concurrent decision unless where perversity is shown to exist. – Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – PROBATIVE VALUE
The confessional statements of the
Accused/appellant Exhibits A and J which were subjected to trial within trial
before they were admitted in evidence are sufficient to link the
accused/appellant with the commission of the offence.” – Per Fasanmi JCA
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE – NECESSITY OF PRODUCTION
The learned trial Judge held that
there was no doubt as to the object of the robbery and that the Appellant was
never in any way misled or prejudiced by the fact that the robbed motorcycle
was not tendered.- Per Aloma Mariam Mukhtar JSC
APPELLATE COURT’S APPROACH TO FINDINGS OF FACT
Setting aside findings of fact of
a trial Court is a very serious appellate function which an Appellate Court
cannot exercise for the fun of it, but rather for valid legal reason or
reasons. An Appellate Court cannot fault the findings of fact of a trial Court
when the Appellate Court does not find or see any fault. – Per Fasanmi
JCA
DISCREPANCIES IN EVIDENCE – EFFECT ON PROSECUTION’S CASE
The consistencies/contradictions
alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant are not such that would have
affected the substance of the prosecution’s case. – Per Aloma Mariam
Mukhtar JSC
LEGAL ELEMENTS OF ARMED ROBBERY – ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
From the provisions of Section 16,
now Section 11 (as revised) of the Act, and the general case law, it is my
understanding that for the prosecution to secure conviction on the offence of
robbery (armed robbery), it has the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt
that robbery has taken place, the robbery was an armed robbery, and the accused
person participated in the robbery. – Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
I have perused this evidence
several times and I have seen no material not to talk of any contradiction in
the evidence of PW1 as to the scene of crime. For a statement to be
contradictory, it should be direct opposite of what was earlier stated or
spoken.- Per Fasanmi JCA
SENTENCE IN ARMED ROBBERY CASES – STATUTORY PROVISIONS
If any offender mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is armed with any firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed; or at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person, the offender shall be liable upon conviction under this Act to be sentenced to death. – Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
- Evidence Act Cap. I12 1990 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria
- Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990
- Tribunals (Certain Consequential Amendments ETC), Decree 1999
- Criminal Code Law of Ogun State Cap. 29 Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria, Vol. 11, 1978
- Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R11, Volume 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004