SOPURUCHI OBED V THE STATE

CORAM

HON. JUSTICE, S. D. BAGE, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

HON. JUSTICE, Y. B. NIMPAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

SOPURUCHI OBED APPELLANTS

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant along with one Oto – Bong Sunday were charged on a two count charge for the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery contrary to section 403(A) and 402 (2) of the Criminal Code Cap (17) Vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State, 2003 at the Lagos State High Court for robbing one Praise Lawani of various items. They both pleaded not guilty to the charge and after the conclusion of trial, they were convicted and sentenced to death. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether the arraignment of the Appellant and consequently the whole trial at the lower Court was not a nullity?

2. Whether non-signing of the record of proceedings of the lower Court rendered the proceedings of the day a nullity.?

3. Whether the finding of the learned trial judge that the prosecution proved its case as required by law can be supported by the totality of the evidence added before the Court.?

4. Whether the sentence of the Appellant to death by the learned trial judge based on the opinion of the judge ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ARRAIGNMENT – REQUIREMENT FOR A VALID ARRAIGNMENT

“It is the requirement of the law that necessary steps to a valid arraignment are complied with as provided in section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act and these are:-
(a) The accused must be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see cause otherwise to order;
(b) The charge or information shall be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court by the registrar or other officer of the court; and
(c)The accused person shall then be called upon to plead to the charge thereto instantly otherwise, such as objection to want of service where the accused is entitled by law to service of a copy of the information and the court is satisfied that he has in fact not been dully served therewith;
(d) The plea of the accused shall also be instantly recorded by the court”. PER NIMPAR JCA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS – STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNING THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BY A JUDGE – EFFECT OF NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT

“It is a legal requirement for the record of proceedings of each day to be signed by the judge, see Section 245 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2007 and Section 294(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Failure to comply with the statutory provisions is fatal as the record is rendered null and void.” PER NIMPAR JCA

CONSPIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY – INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCES OF CONSPIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY REQUIRED TO BE PROVED BY THE PROSECUTION TO GROUND A CONVICTION

“The offence charged is conspiracy and Armed Robbery. The ingredients required to be proved by the prosecution are:-
(a)Prove that there was a robbery.
(b) Prove that the robbers were armed with offensive weapons prohibited by the law.
(c) Prove that the accused participated in the robbery
It is a legal requirement that the prosecution must prove all the ingredients of the offence to ground a conviction.” PER NIMPAR JCA

SUSPICION – WHETHER MERE SUSPICION OF COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE AMOUNTS TO PROOF THAT AN ACCUSED PERSON COMMITTED THE OFFENCE

“Mere suspicions of a commission of an offence cannot amount to proof that the accused person committed the offence for which they are being charged.” PER OBASEKI-ADEJUMO JCA

DIRECT EVIDENCE – DUTY OF THE COURT WHERE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IS ABSENT.

“It is settled that where direct evidence of the commission of a crime is absent, the court can infer from the facts proved the existence of other facts which logically and conclusively establish the guilt of the accused.” PER NIMPAR JCA

HEARSAY – MEANING OF HEARSAY – SECTION 37 EVIDENCE ACT

“Hearsay means a statement;
(a) Oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceedings; or
(b) Contained or recorded in a book, document or and record whatsoever, proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it.” PER NIMPAR JCA

BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

“It is settled beyond citing of authorities that the burden placed on the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt and that is not to say the charge must be proved beyond all shadow of doubt. This burden does not shift from beginning to the end of the trial.” PER NIMPAR JCA

MATERIAL WITNESS – DUTY ON THE PROSECUTION TO CALL MATERIAL WITNESSES TO PROVE THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF AN OFFENCE

“The prosecution however is under a duty to call material witnesses necessary to prove the essential ingredients of the offence.” PER NIMPAR JCA

WITNESSES – WHETHER A PROSECUTION IS BOUND TO CALL A HOST OF WITNESSES TO PROVE ITS CASE

“The prosecution is not bound to call a host of witness to prove its case, see VICTOR V STATE (2013) LPELR – 20749 as the Supreme Court restated the principle in these words: “It is settled principle of law that the prosecution is not bound to call all witnesses but only essential witnesses to prove its case.” PER NIMPAR JCA

AGE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – DUTY OF THE COURT IN DETERMINING THE AGE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

“It is settled that where age is in issue, the court should proceed to take evidence in order to determine age.” PER NIMPAR JCA

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – WHEN IS IDENTIFICATION PARADE NECESSARY

“Identification parade is necessary only in circumstances listed by the Supreme court in a number of cases, one of which is TAJUDEEN ALABI V THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 307) 511 where the court held that identification is essential in cases where the victim did not know the accused before and was confronted by the offender for a very short time and in which time and circumstances he might not have had full opportunity of observing the features of the accused”. PER NIMPAR JCA

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- WHEN CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS RETRACTED- DUTY OF COURT AS TO THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO SAME

“A confessional statement is admissible in evidence notwithstanding the retraction. But in determining the weight to be attached to it, the court should test its truthfulness and reliability by examining the statement in the light of other credible available evidence. It is usual to do this by checking to see (a) whether there is anything outside the confessional statement to show that it is true; (b) whether there is any corroboration; (c) whether the accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence; (d) whether the facts stated in the retracted confessional statement are true as far as can be tested; (e) whether the confession was possible; (f) whether the confession is consistent with the other facts ascertained and proved at the trial. PER IYIZOBA JCA

ARMED ROBBERY- IN A CASE OF ARMED ROBBERY WHEN WILL IT BE NECESSARY TO PUT THE WEAPONS IN EVIDENCE AS EXHIBITS

“However, if there is no cogent, reliable and authentic oral evidence of an eye witness and there is also evidence that the weapons were recovered, it will be necessarily to put the weapons in evidence as Exhibits. PER IKEYEGH JCA

ARMED ROBBERY-WHETHER EVIDENCE OF THE USE OR POSSESSION OF FIREARM WOULD BE RELEVANT TO PROVE THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY

“Evidence of the use or possession of firearms or offensive weapon would be relevant to prove the aggravated offence of armed robbery. Where there is eye witness evidence indicating weapons were used it suffices without necessarily tendering the weapons, if recovered, in evidence as Exhibits –

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT- WHEN A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT CAN GROUND A CONVICTION

“A free, direct, positive and voluntary confessional statement is enough to ground a conviction for the offence(s) charged and confessed to by the accused. PER IKEYEGH JCA

CASES CITED

Ahmed V. State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt746) 622Aigbadian V State (2001) 2 A CLR P. 48 at 62.Akinyemi V State (1999) 6 NWLR (PT 607) 449Akpa V. State (2008) 14 NWLR (T 1106) 72;Bozin V. State (1985) 2 NWLR (PT 8) 465.Modupe V. The State (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt 87) 130 At 137Ogbodo V State (1987) NSCC 429 at 437;Omonga Vs. State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt 1000) At 532.State V Ajie (2008) 7 SCNJ 1.State V Isah (2012) 16 NWLR Pt (1327) 613 at 592;Victor V State (2013) LPELR – 20749

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2007

2. Children and Young Persons Act

3. Criminal Code Cap Laws of Lagos State, 2003

4. Evidence Act 2011.

5. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT