CORAM
NNAMANI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
PATRICK IKEMSON
ANTHONY ODEY (ALIAS FEDELIX)
IKECHUKWU UZOCHUKWU
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW – ALIBI – CONFESSION- COMMON INTENTION- ARMED ROBBERY
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were charged for armed robbery on the evidence of the 2 victims of the robbery. They made a confessional statement which they retracted at trial and raised the defence of alibi.
HELD
The court dismissed their appeal against conviction by the trial court as confirmed by the court of appeal.
ISSUES
1. Was the identification of the appellants in accordance with the law?
2. Because there were contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, was the Court right in convicting the appellants on such evidence?
3. Was the discharge of Samuel Nwogu (alias G.O.C.) by the Court of Appeal not sufficient ground for the discharge of the present appellants?
4. Because the prosecution never called some witnesses, could this Court not exercise it powers under S.26(1) Supreme Court Act?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFENCE OF ALIBI: DUTY OF POLICE.
Once alibi is raised by an accused person, it is incumbent on the prosecution to investigate the alibi to find out if it is true the accused was not at the scene of crime when the crime was being committed; or to rebut the alibi if it was false Adio v. The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 31) 714;Onafowokan v.The State (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 538. It is however, not enough for the accused just to say he was not at the scene, he must give sufficient particulars as to his whereabouts for the prosecution to investigate- Belgore J.S.C.
COMMON INTENTION TO COMMIT ROBBERY: EFFECT
The mere fact of common object to commit armed robbery and manifesting at the scene of crime to execute that object in law rendered all the appellants guilty of the offence of armed robbery- Belgore J.S.C.
ADMISSIBLE STATEMENT UNOBJECTED TO BY DEFENDANT:EFFECT OF.
Once a statement complies with the law and rules governing the method for taking it and it is tendered and not objected to by the defence, whereby it was admitted as an exhibit, then it is a good evidence and no amount of retraction will vitiate its admission as a voluntary statement. It is a different matter from a statement objected to ab initio during trial where voluntariness is challenged; in such a case there will be trial within trial to decide its voluntariness.-Belgore J.S.C
WHEN RETRACTION WILL NECCESITATE A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL
CASES CITED
1. Nwosisi v. The State (1976) 6 S.C. 109.
2. Yanor v. The State (1965) 1 All NLR 193;
3. Okosi v. The State (1989) 2 S.C .(Pt.1) 126, (1989)1NWLR (Pt. 100) 642.
4. Adio v. The State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 31) 714;
5. Onafowokan v.The State (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 538
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available