ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY

OSIFO v. STATE (2021) LPELR-54136(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH MAY, 2021

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE.

LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on the Offences of Armed Robbery and Kidnapping.

FACTS

The case of the prosecution was that at 7:30 pm on 30/4/2010, a certain Tina Ihasele was in a car with her male friend, going to attend a wake keep. They stopped at a place so that she could give her baby to someone in the next street. As she came down from the car, somebody emerged and asked her male friend to drop the key and come down from the car. The strange person tapped her on her chest and dispossessed her of her gold necklace, earrings and hand chains. She was ordered to re-enter the car. When she was reluctant to do so, a gun was pointed at her. She noticed four armed men surrounding her. The men drove the car away with her inside it.

At a (petrol) filling station the appellant who was then driving the car, came down from it to buy petrol for the car. It was then that her face was covered with her face cap. She was driven to a mud house. Her abductors, the appellant and one Biggy demanded a ransom of Fifteen Million Naira (N15m) for her freedom. The appellant showed her a loaded gun, threaten to kill her if she refused to co-operate. She negotiated with them and an agreement for her to pay One Million Naira (N1m) for her freedom was reached. Her family members paid the ransom and she was released five (5) days after her kidnap.

​The appellant denied the offence and testified that he travelled to Abuja sometime in 2010 and returned to Benin City on 23/5/2011 to prepare for his marriage. On 1/6/2011, a day after his marriage, he was in bed with his new wife when Policemen visited his father’s house where he was and arrested him along with his father on account of his father’s vehicle.

The trial court found the appellant guilty of three out of four counts of offences, to wit: conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery and kidnapping. He was accordingly sentenced to death by hanging in respect of armed robbery and 21 years imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine in respect of kidnapping. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

“1. Whether upon due evaluation of the facts and evidence before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the charges of conspiracy, armed robbery and kidnapping against the Appellant in accordance with the standard of proof imposed by law.

2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have relied on the confessional statement purportedly made by the Appellant which confessional statement was not proven to have passed the acid test prescribed by law.

3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have believed the oral evidence of PW2 which evidence contained material contradictions/inconsistencies with her statement to the police.”

DECISION/HELD

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant were affirmed.

RATIOS

• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY: Ingredients that must exist to prove the offence of armed robbery
• EVIDENCE- EVIDENCE OF AN EYE WITNESS: Position of the law where an eye witness omits to mention at the earliest opportunity the name(s) of the person(s) seen committing an offence
• EVIDENCE- CROSS-EXAMINATION: Requirement of the law where a witness is to be cross-examined as to previous statements in writing