WAHAB BALOGUN V THE STATE

CORAM

PARTIES

WAHAB BALOGUN

APPELLANTS 

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, COURT, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and two other persons were arraigned before the High Court of Oyo State on a two count charge of conspiracy to murder and murder under Sections 324 and 319 of the Criminal Code Cap. 30 Volume 11 Laws of Oyo State 1978. At the end of trial, the Appellant and the Co- Accused persons were found guilty and sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the first count and death by hanging on the second count.  Aggrieved, with the decision of the Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the court, dismissed his appeal. Dissatisfied, the Appellant has further appealed to the apex Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the lower Court was right to have upheld the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHOM LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

“In criminal cases, the burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is on the person who asserts it. See Section 135(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011. Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. The assertion before the trial Court that the appellant committed the offence for which he was charged, tried and convicted was made by the prosecution. The burden of proof was therefore on the prosecution who was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and a general duty to rebut the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to the Appellant. This burden never shifts. See Alabi vs The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 307) 511 at 531 paras A-C: Solola vs The State (2005) 5 SC (Pt. 1) 135.” PER P.A. GALINJE, J.S.C

COURT – DUTY OF THE COURT WHERE A PARTY IS CHARGED WITH A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SAME OFFENCE.

“Where an indictment contains charges for a substantive offence and conspiracy to commit the offence, the proper step for a Court is to first deal with the charge for the substantive offence and then proceed to consider whether the charge for conspiracy ought to have been made at all and whether it is made out. This is so because a conviction for conspiracy will fail if the conviction for the substantive offence is set aside. See Patrick Njovens vs The State (1973) 5 SC 17.” PER P.A. GALINJE, J.S.C

OFFENCE OF MURDER- INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN ESTABLISHING ITS CASE

“For the prosecution to prove the offence of murder under Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Oyo State, it must prove by credible evidence the following ingredients:-

1. That the deceased had died.

2. That the death of the deceased was caused by the Appellant.

3. That the Appellant knew that death would be the probable consequence of his act.

See Akpan vs The State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 56) 735 at 737: Bassey vs The State (2003) FWLR (Pt. 164) 294: Ogba vs The State (1992) 12 NWLR (Pt. 222) 164: Aruna vs The State (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 153) 125.” PER. P.A. GALINJE, J.S.C

RIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, LAW OF EVIDENCE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY-IMPLICATION OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY ON OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS ONCE ESTABLISHED

C

“In Alarape vs. The State (2010) FWLR (Pt. 41) 1872 at 1898 – 1894 this Court, per Iguh JSC said:-

“The point that needs to be emphasized in these sorts of cases is that once it is firmly established that two or more persons formed the necessary common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, an offence of such a nature of such purpose is committed, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence. In such circumstances, the Court, once the execution of the common intention or design is established would be right in asserting that it does not matter on such facts which of the accused person does what. This is for the simple reason that under such circumstances a fatal blow, though given by one of the accused persons involved, is deemed in the eyes of the law to have been given by the rest of his co-accused person. The person actually delivering the blow is said to be no more than the hand by which the others all strike.”

– PER P.A. GALINJE, J.S.C

CONSPIRACY – DEFINITION OF CONSPIRACY

“Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more persons to do an act. Where the agreement is to do an unlawful act, then such agreement becomes an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more but in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, by unlawful means. PER P.A. GALINJE, J.S.C

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999

Criminal Code Cap. 30 Volume 11 Laws of Oyo State 1978

Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT