Legalpedia Citation: (2014-03) Legalpedia (SC) 14311
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 14, 2014
Suit Number: SC. 455/2012
CORAM
PARTIES
THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE APPELLANTS
MOHAMMED UMARU
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Accused person Mr. Mohammed Umaru was charged before a High Court of Lagos State along with others at large for Armed Robbery contrary to section 402 [2] [a] of the Criminal Code Law, Cap 17, vol. 12, Laws of Lagos State, 2003 . In the course of the robbery, one Mr. Nnosiri was stabbed. The prosecution witness one (PW1) Mr. Nnosiri identified the Accused person from the sandals he wore. At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the Accused to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s judgment the Accused appealed to the Court of Appeal. The lower Court having reviewed the case, allowed the appeal, set aside the trial Court’s judgment, discharged and acquitted the Accused. The Prosecutor/Appellant has appealed to this Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether considering the circumstances of this case and the evidence presented at trial, the Court of Appeal was right in setting aside the judgment and sentence of the trial court?
2. Whether the refusal or failure of the appellant to tender the statement of PW1 and the dagger was fatal to the case of the prosecution?
3. Whether the prosecution established the ingredients in section 149(a) of the Evidence Act to ground conviction under that provision?
4. Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellant as the prosecution did not discharge the burden of proof placed on it by law with regard to the armed robbery charge brought against the appellant?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CRIMINAL TRIAL-BURDEN OF PROOF-ON WHO LIES-EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“In such trials, the law places the BURDEN OF PROOF on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will automatically read to the discharge of the accused person. The burden never shifts.” PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C
DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION-PURPORT OF- SECTION 149(A) EVIDENCE ACT
“Section 149(a) Evidence Act is a codification of the Common Law doctrine of recent possession, it state (sic) that the possessor of stolen goods is deemed either to have stolen the goods himself or received it fraudulently from the thieve unless there is satisfactory and convincing explanation from him.” PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C
OFFENCES– ARMED ROBBERY-INGREDIENTS OF
“The ingredients to be proved to sustain conviction of an accused who stands answerable to such a charge are well settled by legion of authorities. These ingredients are that:
(a) there was a robbery or series of robberies;
(b) the robbery or each robbery was an armed robbery and
(c) the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robbery. Failure of the prosecution to prove any of these ingredients is fatal to its case.” PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C
WITHHOLDING OF EVIDENCE-PRESUMPTION THERETO-SECTION 149[D] OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
“Where a party claims to have evidence that goes to show the existence of a document in proof of his case, the document should be tendered. Where such evidence could be produced but it is not produced, it is presumed to be against the interest of the party withholding it.” PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C
GROUND OF APPEAL- WHETHER ONE GROUND OF APPEAL CAN RELATE TO MORE THAN ONE ISSUE
“In the history of brief writing in appellate Courts, it is incongruous for one ground of appeal to relate to or be split into more than one issue.” PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C
DOCTRINE OF RECENT POSSESSION-OPERATION OF
For this doctrine to operate there ought to be evidence.
[1] that the accused herein the appellant was found in possession of some goods.
[2] that those goods were recently stolen.
[3] that the appellant failed to account for his possession”. PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C
CRIMINAL CASES- BURDEN OF PROOF-ON WHO LIES-WHETHER SHIFTS
“In criminal cases the law places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecution which must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden does not shift as it rests on the prosecution throughout. The existence of a doubt as to the guilt of an accused automatically entitles the accused to a discharge.” PER MUHAMMED, J.S.C.
CRIMINAL TRIAL-PROOF OF AN ALLEGED OFFENCE
“In Criminal trial, the alleged offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt”. PER MUHAMMAD, J.S.C
OFFENCES-ARMED ROBBERY-NATURE OF PROOF REQUIRED
“Proof of the above ingredients of the offence or even in civil actions, can be done either through documentary evidence, or by oral evidence or even through circumstantial evidence, as the case may be”. PER TMUHAMMAD, J.S.C
CASES CITED
Alah v. C.O.P. 1968 NMLR, 121;Alonge V. Inspector General of Police (1959) 5 SCNLR 516 (1959) 4 SC 203Aminu V. The State (1990) 6 NWLR (part 155] 125 at page 135;Bozin V. The State (1985) 7 NWLR [part 8] 465 at page 471;Bode V. COP (1970) NNLR 35 at page 17Doka V. Zaria Native Authority (1966) NNMLR 145 at page 150;Eboh V. Progressive Insurance Company Limited [1987] 2 QLRN 167;George V. The State [2009] 1 NWLR [part 1122]Ikemson V. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (PART 110) 455 at 466Kofi V. The Queen (1952-55) 14 WACA 648;Martins V. The State (1997) 1 NWLR (part 481) 355 Nwachukwu V. The State (1985) 1 NWLR (Part 1) 218;Okosi V. Attorney-General Bendel State [1989] 1 NWLR [part 100] 642;Omiboju V. The State (1974) 9 SC 1,R. V. Isa Braimah 1943, 9 WACA, 197State V. Aiyeola & Ors 1969, 1 ALL NLR 303Stephen V. The State (1986) 5 NWLR (Part 46) 978
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Criminal Code Law of Lagos State 2003
Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provisions) Act 2004