CORAM

---

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL JCA

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU JCA

MOHAMMED DANJUMA JCA

---

PARTIES

---

MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, ROBBERY, CONSPIRACY, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, BURDEN OF PROOF, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The prosecution alleged that on the night of March 21, 2017, the Appellant and his accomplices, while armed with a dane gun, cutlasses, knives, and sticks, invaded the residence of one Alhaji Bello Ibrahim at Katam Village in Akko Local Government Area of Gombe State. They allegedly attacked and robbed him of money and other valuables.

The Appellant, along with three others, was charged before the High Court of Gombe State in Charge No. GM/203C/2020 for conspiracy and armed robbery.

At the trial, the Appellant, who was the 3rd accused person, pleaded not guilty. The prosecution called six witnesses and tendered several exhibits, while the Appellant testified in his own defense and called no witnesses.

On December 16, 2021, the trial court held that the offense of armed robbery had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it convicted the Appellant of the lesser offenses of robbery and conspiracy, imposing a custodial sentence along with a fine of ₦20,000.00.

 

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant obtained an order for extension of time to appeal and filed his Notice of Appeal on April 26, 2024.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was allowed.

2.The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offenses of robbery and conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the decision of the lower court delivered on December 16, 2021, convicting the Appellant and imposing sentences, was set aside.

3.A verdict of discharge and acquittal was entered in respect of the two-count charge preferred against the Appellant.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. 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

---

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – MEANING AND STANDARD:

---

“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of a doubt. If the evidence is strong against a person, leaving only a remote probability in their favor, which can be dismissed with the statement: ‘Of course, it is possible, but not in the least probable,’ then the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

– Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

 

---

STANDARD OF PROOF – NATURE OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:

---

“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean or imply beyond any degree of certainty. The term strictly means that, within the bounds of the evidence presented before the court, no tribunal of justice would convict based on it, having regard to the nature of the evidence led in the case. It should be a proof that excludes all reasonable inferences or assumptions, except those 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, JCA

 

---

METHODS OF PROVING GUILT – THREE WAYS OF ESTABLISHING AN ACCUSED PERSON’S GUILT:

---

“There are three ways or methods of proving the guilt of an accused person, namely:

1. By reliance on a confessional statement of an accused person voluntarily made.

2. By circumstantial evidence.

3. By evidence of eyewitnesses.”

— Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

 

---

RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – EFFECT OF RETRACTION ON ADMISSIBILITY:

---

“Even though the Appellant retracted the confessional statement at the trial, it is abecedarian 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, JCA

 

---

TEST FOR DETERMINING VERACITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – FACTORS TO CONSIDER:

---

“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:

1. There is anything outside the confession to show that it is true.

2. It is corroborated.

3. The facts stated in the confession are true as far as can be tested.

4. The accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence.

5. The accused person’s confession is possible.

6. The confession is consistent with the other facts ascertained and proved.”
   — Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

 

---

INGREDIENTS OF ROBBERY – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS TO BE PROVED:

---

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

1. 1. That stealing took place.

1. 1. There was use of force or presence of threat of use of force.

1. The intention to retain stolen property.”
   
   — Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

 

---

HEARSAY EVIDENCE – PROBATIVE VALUE OF HEARSAY TESTIMONY:

---

“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, JCA

 

---

CONSPIRACY – DEFINITION AND NATURE OF THE OFFENSE:

---

“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, JCA

 

---

PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – METHODS OF ESTABLISHING CONSPIRACY:

---

“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, JCA

 

---

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN CONSPIRACY – QUALITY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REQUIRED:

---

“The circumstantial evidence on which a successful conviction for conspiracy can be predicated is evidence not of the fact in issue, but of other facts from which the fact in issue can be inferred. The evidence in this connection must be of such quality that irresistibly compels to make an inference as to the guilt of the accused person.”

— Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA

 

---

GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF PROVING CONSPIRACY – DIRECT OR INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE:

---

“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, JCA

 

---

RESOLUTION OF DOUBT – BENEFIT OF DOUBT:

---

“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, JCA

---

PRINCIPLE OF ACQUITTING THE GUILTY RATHER THAN CONVICTING THE INNOCENT:

---

“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, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2 Section 36(5) – Presumption of innocence

3 Criminal Procedure Code

4 Section 218(2) – Power to convict for lesser offence

5 Evidence Act

6 Section 135(1) – Burden of proof in criminal cases

7 Penal Code

8 Section 96 – Conspiracy

9 Section 97 – Punishment for conspiracy

10 Section 296 – Definition of robbery

11 Section 298 – Punishment for robbery

 

---

CLICK HERE TO REAL FULL JUDGMENT