CASE TITLE: AMINU v. STATE (2024) LPELR-61614(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 30TH JANUARY, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the offence of Armed Robbery.
FACTS:
This appeal was brought by the Appellant against the judgment of the High Court of Kaduna State, sitting at Zaria, delivered on March 3rd, 2020, by Coram M. M. Ladan, J.
The facts leading to this appeal are that PW1, Emmanuel Umoh, a staff member of Namax Research Company, was violently disposed of his mobile telephone and his wallet on October 30, 2016, around 10 p.m., by three men who arrived at the scene on a motorbike. His girlfriend, Bola, was also violently disposing of her telephone and her handbag. Specifically, PW1 testified that the 2nd defendant, one Ali Abdullahi, held him, putting a knife to his neck, while he was asked to hand over his telephone and wallet to the 1st defendant, who also took his girlfriend’s telephone and her handbag. His girlfriend ran off, shouting and raising an alarm. PW1 grabbed the 1st defendant while the Appellant and 2nd defendant ran away. Other persons responded to the alarm and also held the 1st defendant.
The Appellant, as well as the 1st and 3rd defendants, were arrested and arraigned on a two count Charge of Criminal Conspiracy punishable under Section 6(b) of the Robbery and Firearms Provision Act, Cap. R11 Laws of the Federation 2005, and ARMED ROBBERY Punishable under Section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms Provision Act Cap. R11 Laws of the Federation 2005.
Upon arraignment, the Appellant pleaded not guilty. At the trial, the Respondent called one witness, who was the complainant, in proof of its case, while the Appellant gave evidence for himself and thereafter closed his case.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the Appellant as well as the 1st and 2nd defendants guilty as charged and sentenced them to death.
Aggrieved with his conviction and sentence, the Appellant lodged an instant appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on:
“Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.”
DECISION/HELD:
The Court found the appeal meritorious and therefore allowed it. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial Court were set aside. The Appellant was accordingly discharged and acquitted.
RATIOS:
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – Ingredients of the Offense of armed robbery; standard of proof required of the prosecution
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – Meaning of Armed Robbery: When the offense of armed robbery or robbery with firearms is deemed to have been committed
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – Meaning of an offensive weapon; whether the prosecution is required to prove that a weapon capable of causing grievous harm was involved in the robbery
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – Meaning of “knife”; whether the weapon used to carry out armed robbery must be tendered by the prosecution to secure a conviction
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – Whether the prosecution must prove that the accused person was the robber or one of those who took part in the armed robbery
- EVIDENCE – CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE – When will a contradiction affect the decision of a Court
- WORDS AND PHRASES – “AROUND” – Meaning of “around”).
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – CHARGE(S) – Position of the law on the use of the phrase “on or about” in a charge
- EVIDENCE – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – Whether proof of the exact time that an incident occurred is one of the elements of an offence required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- EVIDENCE – CALLING OF WITNESS(ES) – Effect of failure to call a vital witness
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – REASONABLE DOUBT – Duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; whether doubt in a criminal trial must be resolved in favour of the accused
- EVIDENCE – CROSS-EXAMINATION – Effect of failure to challenge the evidence of a witness in cross-examination
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY – Whether the prosecution must establish compelling evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offence; instance where it would be held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of armed robbery
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
