CORAM

---

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KASTINA-ALU CHIEF, JUSTICE OF NIGERIA

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD    JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

PETER ADEWUNMI   APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant  as the accused was arraigned before an Akure High Court on a one count charge for an  offence of armed robbery contrary to and Punishable under section 1(2) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398. Vol. xxii Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990. He and other persons still at large, armed with guns and cutlasses invaded the premises of Value Tech Company at Ijare at about 3p.m. on 28th of December, 2001. In the process of the operation, they shot and killed the gateman of the company and the company’s driver. Pw1 and Pw2 who were employees of the Company scampered into the bush from where they had a good view of the robbery operation and thus recognized the Appellant on sight as one of the robbers. The Appellant and his gang made away with N42, 650 after killing the two male employees of the Company. On arraignment, the Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case proceeded to trial. His defence of alibi was demolished by the Respondent on account of failure to provide details and witnesses in support of his defence. The court after due consideration of the evidence adduced by each party entered judgment in favor of the prosecution and sentenced the accused to death. The Appellant aggrieved by the decision of the trial court appealed to the Court of Appeal challenging its decision. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial Court as one founded on valid legal ground. The Appellant still not satisfied with the decision of the lower court has further filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the arraignment of the Appellant at the trial court was in compliance with provisions of section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ondo State, and if it is not whether non-compliance rendered the entire trial a nullity?

2. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to prove its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – WHETHER IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS NECESSARY IN ALL CASES

---

“It is not in every case that an identification parade is necessary to identify culprits. Once there is direct and positive evidence of identification or compelling circumstantial evidence the accused person is expected to call evidence to establish his alibi”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

---

ARMED ROBBERY – FACTORS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION IN A CHARGE OF ARMED ROBBERY

---

“To succeed in a charge of armed robbery the prosecution must prove each of the following beyond reasonable doubt:
1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies,
2. That each robbery was an armed robbery, .i.e. stealing plus violence.
3. That the accused person was one of those who took part in the armed robbery. See Eke v State (2011) 1-2 SC (Pt. ii) p.219 , Ogudo v State (2011) 12 SC (Pt. i) p. 71, John & anor v State (2011) 12 SC (Pt. i) p. 130.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

---

PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

---

“Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 sets the standard of proof required where the commission of crime is in issue. It is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In Nwatu urocha v State (2011) 2 -3 SC (PL i) p. 11 I said that;
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. A degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability. See also Ochiba v State (2011) 12SC (Pt. iv) p. 79, Chukwuma v FRN (2011) 5SC (P.ii) p. 84.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

---

DEFENCE OF ALIBI – IMPORT OF THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI

---

“Alibi is a complete defence raised by an accused person charged for an offence. E.g. Murder, Armed Robbery. It simply means that when the offence was committed the accused person was somewhere else, so he could not have committed the offence. An alibi must be very detailed on where the accused person was. Evidence from persons that were with him at the time would be most relevant to show that he could not have committed the offence, because he was with them. The onus is on the accused person to rely on evidence to support or establish his alibi, and the standard of proof required is on balance of probabilities. There would be no need for the investigating Police officers to investigate an alibi if there is overwhelming evidence against the accused person that he participated in the crime. See Osuagwu v State (2013) 1 – 2SC (Pt. i) p. 37, Aliyu v State (2013) 8 -7SC (Pt. iv) p. 1, Ajayi v state (2013)2-3SC (Pt. i) p.143.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

---

ARRAIGNMENT – PRE-CONDITIONS FOR A VALID ARRAIGNMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

---

“Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ondo State lays down the conditions to be fulfilled before there is a valid and proper arraignment of an accused person. The following conditions must be satisfied.
1. The accused person shall be placed before the court unfettered unless the court otherwise directs e.g. he may be fettered if the judge is satisfied that the accused shows signs of being violent;
2. The charge shall be read over and explained to the accused person to the satisfaction of the court in the language he understands by the Registrar or other officer of the court; 3. The accused person shall be called upon to plead to the charge. See John Timothy v FRN (2012) 6SC (Pt. iii) P.159, Effiom v State (1995) 1NWLR (Pt. 373) P.507, Kajubo v State (1988) 1NSCC 19 NSCC p.475, Madu v State (2012) 6SC (Pt. l) 10,
Failure to comply with any of these conditions renders the trial a nullity.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Criminal Procedure Law of Ondo State

2. Evidence Act Cap 112, 1990 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria

3. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398. Vol. xxii Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT