What the Prosecution Must Prove in a Charge of Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Effect of Failure To Do So

CASE TITLE: STATE v. ISEH (2024) LPELR-62928(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.

FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, Ikot Ekpene Judicial Division (trial Court), delivered on the 3rd of December 2020 by Hon. Justice Augustine D. Odokwo.

The case of the prosecution as per the evidence of PW3, who was the investigating police officer, was that upon receiving a petition complaining of unlawful possession of firearms against the respondent, he executed a search warrant in the respondent’s house and recovered one locally made gun and one live cartridge in his room. He tendered the gun he said he recovered, and it was admitted as exhibit 4 at the trial, along with the extrajudicial statement of the respondent admitted as exhibit 1 and the search warrant admitted as exhibit 3.

The respondent denied the charge and insisted that the gun recovered from the back of his house, which was an old, unusable one owned by his father, was not the same tendered by the appellant’s PW3 as exhibit 4. He testified as DW1 and called one witness, DW4, in defence of the charge.

After the trial, in a considered judgment, the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove the third ingredient of the offence of unlawful possession of a firearm having failed to prove that exhibit 4 was the same gun recovered from the house of the respondent. His Lordship therefore proceeded to discharge and acquit the respondent of the charge.

The appellant was aggrieved with the judgment and appealed against same.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court adopted the issues formulated by the appellant in the determination of the appeal, thus:

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Appellant had not proved the case of illegal possession of firearms against the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses with regards to exhibit 4, cast doubt on the mind of the Court to warrant the discharge and acquittal of the Respondent.

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:
• APPEAL- OMNIBUS GROUND OF APPEAL: How to couch an omnibus ground of appeal in a criminal appeal
• APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Purpose of ground(s) of appeal
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Attitude of appellate courts to findings of fact made by a lower court
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION: What the prosecution must prove in a charge of unlawful possession of firearms and effect of failure to do so
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of proof in criminal cases

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol