MOMODU v. STATE
(2020)LCN/13991(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, March 20, 2020
CA/IB/112C/2018
Before Our Lordships:
Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal
Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Court of Appeal
Folasade Ayodeji Ojo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
JIMOH MOMODU APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
It is trite that in criminal trials, the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
See – Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011.
It is also settled law that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the Prosecution must prove its case with precision nor does it mean proof beyond any shadow of doubt. The Prosecution is said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt when it has proved all the ingredients of the particular offence the accused is charged with. See the following cases:-
– ABIRIFON VS. STATE (2013) 13 NWLR PART 1372 PAGE 619.
– NWATURUOCHA VS. STATE (2011) LPELR – 8119 (SC).
– HASSAN VS. STATE (2017) 5 NWLR PART 1557 PAGE 1.
– SMART VS. STATE (2016) 9 NWLR PART 1517 PAGE 447.
In the discharge of the onus of proof, there are three (3) ways by which the Prosecution can prove the commission of a crime.
(1). By Confessional Statement
(2). By evidence of eye witness i.e. direct evidence
(3). By circumstantial evidence where confessional statement is lacking. See the following cases:- ABIRIFON VS. STATE (SUPRA). GIRA VS. STATE (1996) 4 SCNJ PAGE 95 AT 106. EMEKA VS. STATE (2001) 6 SCNJ PAGE 259. PER BADA, J.C.A.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
It is trite that whenever an accused person is charged with the offence of armed robbery, the burden of proof is on the Prosecution to prove the following elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
(1). That there was a robbery or series of robberies
(2). That the said robbery was an armed robbery
(3). That the Appellant was one of those who took part in the armed robbery.
See the following cases:-
– OSUAGWU VS. STATE (2016) 16 NWLR PART 1537 PAGE 31.
– ATTAH VS. STATE (2010) 10 NWLR PART 1205 PAGE 190. PER BADA, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
It is also trite that a trial Court can rely solely on the Confessional Statement of an accused person to convict him where same is direct positive and proved.
See the following cases:-
– JAMES SIMON VS THE STATE (2017) 8 NWLR PART 1566 PAGE 119.
– AGBOOLA VS THE STATE (2013) 11 NWLR PART 1366 PAGE 619.
– MUSA VS THE STATE (2018) 13 NWLR PART 1636 PAGE 307.
It must be emphasized that there is no evidence that is stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. This is because no rational being will say anything negative to his own interest. PER BADA, J.C.A.
DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy has been defined in a number of decided cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act or do a lawful act by unlawful means. The two or more persons must be found to have combined in order to secure a conviction. See the following cases:-
– OKEMEFUNE NDOZIE VS THE STATE (2016) 8 NWLR PART 1513 PAGE 1
– BELLO OKASHETU VS THE STATE (2016) 14 NWLR PART 1534 PAGE 126
– TAIWO OLADEJO VS THE STATE (2018) 11 NWLR PART 1630 PAGE 238.
The main substance of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of minds of the conspirators which is hardly capable of direct proof. The offence of conspiracy is established as a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal act of the parties concerned. See the following cases:
– SULE MUSA VS THE STATE (2018) 13 NWLR PART 1636 PAGE 307
– BUSARI VS STATE (2015) 5 NWLR PART 1452 AT PAGE 343
– KOLAWOLE VS STATE (2015) 8 NWLR PART 1460 PAGE 134
– PATRICK NJOVENS VS STATE (1973) 5 SC PAGE 17
– ADUKU VS FRN & OTHERS (2009) 9 NWLR PART 1146 AT PAGE 370.PER BADA, J.C.A.
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the Judgment of High Court of Justice Abeokuta Division in the Ogun State of Nigeria in charge NO: AB/19R/2014: BETWEEN – THE STATE VS (1) LEKAN AJANI (2) JIMOH MOMODU delivered on the 25th day of June, 2015, wherein the Appellant and one other accused person were convicted for the offences of conspiracy to commit robbery, and armed robbery and were sentenced to 21 years imprisonment for each of the 1st and 2nd counts and to death for the 3rd count.
Briefly, the facts of this case are that the Appellant and 1st accused person (Lekan Ajani) and two other persons at large conspired and robbed Toheed Lawal, Lateef Fagbenro and Dare Ogunjimi of their motorcycles on 7th August 2010 and 19th August 2010.
The Appellant and his co-accused were apprehended by members of the Odua Peoples Congress (OPC) with a double barrel locally made gun and live cartridges recovered from the co-accused person.
The Appellant and his co-accused person were taken to the Police Station at Adatan where they confessed to the crime.
The Appellant and his co-accused Lekan
1
Ajani were in October, 2014 arraigned before the lower Court, but by an amended charge a fresh plea of the Appellant and 1st accused person was taken before the lower Court on a charge of conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery, and Robbery contrary to Section 6(b) and punishable under Section 1(1), 1(2) (a) & (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision Act Cap R 11) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
The Appellant who was the 2nd Accused person at the lower Court and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to the amended charge.
At the trial, the Prosecution called 3 witnesses and tendered ten Exhibits (Exhibits A to K).
At the close of the Prosecution’s case the Defence called two witnesses which included the Appellant. Thereafter Counsel for the parties addressed the Court.
At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge in his Judgment delivered on 25th day of June, 2015 found the Appellant and his co-accused guilty and were convicted.
The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower Court appealed to this Court.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated three issues for the determination
2
of the appeal, the issues are reproduced as follows:-
(1). Was the learned trial Judge right to have admitted and placed reliance on exhibits C, E, F and F1 and J despite the fact that the content of Exhibit C and J was not volunteered by the Appellant and the makers of Exhibits E and F and F1 were not called as witnesses (Distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7)
(2). In view of the fact that the Police did not investigate the defence of Alibi timeously raised by the Appellant, was the trial Judge right to have held that the defence of alibi does not avail the Appellant (Distilled from ground 6)
(3). In the light of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, has the Prosecution established the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery against the appellant (Distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal. The said issues are reproduced as follows:-
“(1) whether the Prosecution has proved the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, having
3
considered the defence of alibi raised by the Appellant.
(2) Whether the trial Court rightly admitted and relied on the Appellant’s confessional statements having regard to the circumstances of the case.”
Before going into the merit of this appeal, it is observed that the Appellant formulated more than one issue from a ground of appeal.
It is settled law that two or more issues cannot be formulated from one ground of appeal, but one issue can be formulated from more than one ground of appeal. By the Appellant’s brief of argument, issue 1 was formulated from grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 while issue 2 was formulated from ground 6. Now coming to issue 3, it was formulated from grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. This is wrong, two issues were formulated from grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. It is only ground 8 that could be attached to issue 3.
The consequence of this is that where more than one issue is formulated from the same ground of appeal, both the issues so formulated and the grounds from which they were formulated shall be struck out.
Therefore, issue numbers 1 & 2 formulated on behalf of the Appellant as well as
4
grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are hereby struck out. See the following cases:
– YISI NIGERIA LIMITED VS TRADE BANK PLC (2013) 8 NWLR PART 1357 PAGE 522.
– AGBETOBA VS THE LAGOS STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL & OTHERS (1990) 6 SCNJ PART 1 AT PAGE 12.
– TANEREWA NIG. LTD VS PLASTIFARM LTD (2003) 14 NWLR PART 840 PAGE 369.
In this appeal issues 1 and 2 having been struck out, issue No. 3 which is sustained by ground 8 is the only issue to be considered in this appeal. I could have looked at the issues formulated for the determination of the appeal on behalf of the Respondent but learned Counsel did not show that he formulated his issues from any ground of appeal.
At the hearing of this appeal on the 20th day of January, 2020, the learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of Ogun State High Court delivered on 25/6/2015. The notice of appeal was filed initially on 29/6/2015. But with the leave of Court granted on 9/4/2019 the Appellant amended the notice of appeal filed on 7/6/2018 and it was deemed properly filed on 9/4/2019. Also the Appellant’s brief was filed on 7/6/2018 but it was deemed as
5
properly filed on 9/4/2019.
He adopted and relied on the said Appellant’s brief of argument as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed. He also relied on the case of Lekan Ajani Vs. The State – Appeal No. CA/IB/233/2015, delivered on 8/11/2017.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the Respondent’s brief of argument filed on 24/9/2019 but deemed as properly filed on 8/11/17. He also relied on the case of – IDIOK VS. THE STATE (2008) 13 NWLR PART 1104 PAGE 225 AT 225 TO 235.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent finally urged that the appeal be dismissed.
ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
In the light of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, has the Prosecution established the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery against the Appellant (Distilled from ground 8).
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in the light of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution witnesses, the offence of conspiracy and armed robbery could not be said to have been established against the Appellant. He argued that the standard of proof required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt.
6
He referred to the following:- SECTION 135 OF EVIDENCE ACT 2011.
– IKPO VS. STATE (2016) ALL FWLR PART 837 PAGE 619 AT 624.
– UDO VS. STATE (2006) 15 NWLR PART 1001 PAGE 179.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Prosecution has the responsibility of proving the essential elements of the offence alleged by adducing vital evidence to establish the guilt of the accused person.
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the essential ingredients of the offence of armed robbery enumerated in numerous authorities are:-
“(i). That there was a robbery or series of robberies
(ii). That it was an armed robbery
(iii). That the accused was the robber or one of the robbers.”
He referred to the case of:-
– ADEKOYA VS. STATE (2013) 9 NWLR PART 1306 PAGE 539.
It was submitted further that all the ingredients mentioned above must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In this appeal it was submitted that the ingredients of armed robbery mentioned above were not established. The Appellant was convicted based mainly on the confessional statement but there was no other evidence.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>
7
It was contended that the material witness were not called in this case. He relied on the following cases:-
– STATE VS. IDAPU EMINE & OTHERS (1992) NWLR PART 256 PAGE 258.
– AIKHADUEKI VS. STATE (2014) 9 NCC 707.
On the Confessional Statement, learned Counsel argued that the learned trial Judge ought not to have admitted them in evidence as they were not voluntary.
It was also submitted that for a Court to rely on or attach any probative value to a Confessional Statement, the Confessional Statement must pass the litmus test which has been laid down in a plethora of cases.The tests are:-
(1). Is there anything outside it to show that if it is true.
(2). Is it in anyway corroborated?
(3). Are the facts stated in it true as far as can be tested?
(4). Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence.
(5). Is the accused person’s confession possible or plausible.
(6). Is the alleged confession consistent with other facts that have been ascertained and established.
He relied on the following cases:-
– BATURE VS STATE (1994) 1 NWLR PART 320 PAGE 267 AT 283-284.
8
– DEMO OSENI VS STATE (2012) 5 NWLR PART 1293 PAGE 351 AT 387.
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that there is no shred of fact outside the said Confessional Statements that has been presented which the Court can confirm the statements.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged this Court to hold that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his response to the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that in criminal trials, the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
He relied on the following cases:-
– ABIRIFON VS THE STATE (2013) 9 SCM, PAGE 1 AT 5
– NWATURUOCHA VS THE STATE (2011) 12 SCM PART 2 PAGE 265 AT 269.
– OSETOLA VS THE STATE (2012) 12 SCM PART 2 PAGE 347 AT 365 TO 366.
He submitted that the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery are –
(1). That there was a robbery
(2). That the accused/appellant was armed
(3). That the accused/appellant while armed participated in the robbery.
Counsel relied on the case of – OSUAGWU VS. THE STATE (2013) LPELR – 19823 (SC)
9
The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that PW2 and PW3 recognized the Appellant as one of those brought and transferred to the station. And also that the Appellant made a Confessional Statement. He relied on the case of:- OSUNG VS. THE STATE (2011) 11 SCM PAGE 176 AT 197.
He also referred to Exhibit “E” and Exhibits “C” and “J” where the Appellant admitted being at the scene of crime.
He also relied on the case of- ADEYEMI VS. THE STATE (2014) 8 SCM PAGE 34 AT 55 PARAGRAPHS E – H.
On conspiracy, learned Counsel submitted that conspiracy is complete when two or more persons agree to do unlawful act or do a lawful act by an unlawful means. He referred to the following cases:-OSETOLA VS. THE STATE (SUPRA),
UPAHAR VS. STATE (2003) 6 NWLR PAGE 230 AT 239.
– AJULUCHUKWU VS. THE STATE (2014) SCM PAGE 41.
– YAKUBU VS. THE STATE (2014) SCM PAGE 254 AT 265.
It was also stated that the Appellant raised his alibi for the first time at the trial. It was argued that the alibi was not disclosed to the police at the time the Appellant was volunteering his statement and it
10
is not in Exhibits “C” and “J”. The case of: TONGO VS. C.O.P (2007) 9 SCM PAGE 113 was referred to.
He also referred to- OKOLO OCHEMAJE VS. THE STATE (2008) 10 SCM PAGE 103.
On the Confessional Statement, learned Counsel referred to Sections 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act 2011. The case of -AKPA VS. THE STATE (2008) 8 SCM PAGE 68 AT 70 was referred to, where it was held that an accused person can be convicted on his Confessional Statement where same is direct, positive and proved.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the following cases:-
NWACHUKWU VS. STATE (2007) 12 SCM PART 2 PAGE 447 AT 454.
OSENI VS. STATE (2012) 4 SCM PAGE 150 AT 153.
He urged this Court to hold that the Prosecution proved the offences of Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery and Armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
RESOLUTION
It is trite that in criminal trials, the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
See – Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011.
It is also settled law that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the
11
Prosecution must prove its case with precision nor does it mean proof beyond any shadow of doubt. The Prosecution is said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt when it has proved all the ingredients of the particular offence the accused is charged with. See the following cases:-
– ABIRIFON VS. STATE (2013) 13 NWLR PART 1372 PAGE 619.
– NWATURUOCHA VS. STATE (2011) LPELR – 8119 (SC).
– HASSAN VS. STATE (2017) 5 NWLR PART 1557 PAGE 1.
– SMART VS. STATE (2016) 9 NWLR PART 1517 PAGE 447.
In the discharge of the onus of proof, there are three (3) ways by which the Prosecution can prove the commission of a crime.
(1). By Confessional Statement
(2). By evidence of eye witness i.e. direct evidence
(3). By circumstantial evidence where confessional statement is lacking. See the following cases:- ABIRIFON VS. STATE (SUPRA). GIRA VS. STATE (1996) 4 SCNJ PAGE 95 AT 106. EMEKA VS. STATE (2001) 6 SCNJ PAGE 259.
The Appellant in this case was charged with the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery.
12
It is trite that whenever an accused person is charged with the offence of armed robbery, the burden of proof is on the Prosecution to prove the following elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
(1). That there was a robbery or series of robberies
(2). That the said robbery was an armed robbery
(3). That the Appellant was one of those who took part in the armed robbery.
See the following cases:-
– OSUAGWU VS. STATE (2016) 16 NWLR PART 1537 PAGE 31.
– ATTAH VS. STATE (2010) 10 NWLR PART 1205 PAGE 190.
On the 1st ingredient that there was a robbery on the 19th August 2010 at along Ori-Okeidahunsi Adura, Saje, Abeokuta Ogun State, this was stated in Exhibits “E” “F” and “F1”. There is no dispute that there was an armed robbery on the above mentioned date, therefore the 1st ingredient has been established.
On the second ingredient of Armed Robbery, it was stated in the evidence before the lower Court that the Appellant was in company of the 1st Accused person on 19/8/2010 as stated in Exhibit “E” “F” and “F1”.
The PW2 testified that he was in his office when the members of OPC brought the Appellant and 1st
13
accused person along with Exhibit “G” a double barrel gun (locally made) and Exhibit “G1” live cartridge recovered from the accused persons to the police station. The victims of the Robbery made statements to PW2 which was tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibits “E” “F” and “F1”.
A careful perusal of Exhibits “E” “F” and “F1” would reveal that the Exhibits corroborated the statements of the Appellant in Exhibits “C” and “J” also the statements of the complainant and that of the Appellant established that the Appellant and others had firearm i.e. gun, Exhibits “G” and “G1” with him at the time of the robbery, this was corroborated by Exhibits “E” “F” and “F1”.
Furthermore, the Appellant himself made a Confessional Statement which placed him at the scene of crime. Appellant also admitted having a gun in his possession at the time of the robbery. See the case of- OSUNG VS. STATE (SUPRA).
On the third ingredient, the victims of the Robbery identified the Appellant. It
14
was stated in Exhibit E how the Appellant and one other robbed the victims of the robbery at gun point.
In ADEYEMI VS.STATE (SUPRA), it was held among others that where an accused person in his confessional statement identifies himself, no identification parade is required.
It was contended that the complainant did not testify before the lower Court. But it must not be forgotten that PW2 and PW3 testified that the complainant made statement i.e. Exhibit “E” upon identifying the Appellant at the police station.
Under Section 39 of the Evidence Act 2011,
“Statements, whether written or oral of facts in issue or relevant facts made by a person –
(a). who is dead
(b). who cannot be found
(c). who has become incapable of giving evidence or
(d). whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable are admissible under Sections 40 to 50 of the Evidence Act 2011.”
In view of the above mentioned Section of the Evidence Act this Court can conveniently rely on Exhibit “E” i.e. the statement made
15
by the victim of the armed robbery tendered at the lower Court.
Furthermore all the documents tendered and admitted as Exhibits form part of the Prosecution’s case which the Court must consider.
The PW2 and PW3 testified before the lower court that they did not know the whereabouts of the complainant.
Section 83 (1) (a) (II) of the Evidence Act 2011 is also relevant under this situation.
Furthermore under Section 222 (2) of the Evidence Act 2011 –
“A witness may however give oral evidence of statements made by other persons about the content of a document if such statements are in themselves relevant facts”.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the lower Court should not have admitted and relied on the appellant’s Confessional Statement.
Confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. And under Section 29 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 a confession made by a defendant may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings.
16
It is also trite that a trial Court can rely solely on the Confessional Statement of an accused person to convict him where same is direct positive and proved.
See the following cases:-
– JAMES SIMON VS THE STATE (2017) 8 NWLR PART 1566 PAGE 119.
– AGBOOLA VS THE STATE (2013) 11 NWLR PART 1366 PAGE 619.
– MUSA VS THE STATE (2018) 13 NWLR PART 1636 PAGE 307.
It must be emphasized that there is no evidence that is stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. This is because no rational being will say anything negative to his own interest.
In this case the Appellant raised objection to the involuntariness of the Confessional Statement and trial within trial was conducted before Exhibits C and J i.e Confessional Statements of the Appellant was admitted.
I am of the view that the lower Court was right to have admitted Exhibits “C” and “J” in evidence in view of the evidence given during trial within trial that the Appellant made the statement voluntarily.
A careful reading of Exhibit E, the testimony of the PW2 and PW3 along with Exhibits “C” and “J” i.e the Confessional
17
Statements of the Appellant leaves no one in doubt that the Appellant was one of the armed robbers that robbed the complainant on 19/8/2010.
The lower Court was therefore right in convicting the Appellant on his confessional statements i.e. Exhibits “C” and “J”.
It would be necessary to consider the Alibi raised by the Appellant for the first time at the trial. He stated in his evidence that on the day of the incident he dressed up and on his way to board a vehicle to his place of work, when a bus parked in his front and one passenger pointed at him as the person that he picked as passenger the previous day. He stated further that the others in the vehicle who were OPC officials directed him to enter the vehicle and was taken to Adatan police station. See pages 80 to 83 of the record of appeal. This Alibi was not disclosed to the police at the time Appellant volunteered his statements Exhibits “C” and “J”. By this act the Appellant failed to afford the police the opportunity to investigate the Alibi.
It is incumbent on the Appellant to inform the police of his Alibi and also furnish the
18
police with detailed particulars of his whereabouts so that same could be investigated. It is trite law that Alibi must be made at the earliest opportunity to the police. I am of the view that since the Alibi of the Appellant is not contained in his statement to the police, it is an afterthought. Moreso since the evidence of PW2, PW3, Exhibits “C” “J” and “E” fixed the Appellant to the scene of crime. The defence of Alibi is therefore destroyed.
See – TAJUDEEN ILIYASU VS. THE STATE (2015) 11 NWLR PART 1469 PAGE 26.
– HASSAN VS. STATE (2001) 6 NWLR PART 709 AT PAGE 305.
– OBAKPOLOR VS. THE STATE (1991) 1 SCNJ PAGE 91.
– OPEYEMI VS. THE STATE (2019) LPELR – 48764 (SC).
– ABUBARKAR MOHAMMED VS. THE STATE (2015) 10 NWLR PART 1468 PAGE 496.
The Appellant was convicted for the offence of Conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
Conspiracy has been defined in a number of decided cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act or do a lawful act by unlawful means. The two or more persons must be found to have combined in order to secure a conviction. See
19
the following cases:-
– OKEMEFUNE NDOZIE VS THE STATE (2016) 8 NWLR PART 1513 PAGE 1
– BELLO OKASHETU VS THE STATE (2016) 14 NWLR PART 1534 PAGE 126
– TAIWO OLADEJO VS THE STATE (2018) 11 NWLR PART 1630 PAGE 238.
The main substance of the offence of conspiracy is the meeting of minds of the conspirators which is hardly capable of direct proof. The offence of conspiracy is established as a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal act of the parties concerned. See the following cases:
– SULE MUSA VS THE STATE (2018) 13 NWLR PART 1636 PAGE 307
– BUSARI VS STATE (2015) 5 NWLR PART 1452 AT PAGE 343
– KOLAWOLE VS STATE (2015) 8 NWLR PART 1460 PAGE 134
– PATRICK NJOVENS VS STATE (1973) 5 SC PAGE 17
– ADUKU VS FRN & OTHERS (2009) 9 NWLR PART 1146 AT PAGE 370
In this appeal, in Exhibits A, B and H which are statements of 1st accused person at the lower Court. He confessed to the fact that Goke Akeem and the Appellant met at his house and that they planned to snatch motorcycles on 19/8/2010.
The Appellant corroborated this in Exhibits “C” and “J”. He also gave a vivid narration of how
20
they snatched Lateef Fagbenro’s motorcycle on 19/8/2010.
The 1st accused who was DW1 at the lower Court in Exhibit “H” confessed that he was involved in the said robbery. By the statements of the 1st accused and the Appellant i.e 2nd accused, they both admitted to have known themselves while in the prison before they were released.
The evidence of PW1 – Toheeb Lawal is that he saw both the 1st accused person and another person when he took the first accused person to his destination and before going to buy the milk he was sent but when he came back he did not see the two accused persons and his motorcycle.
In view of the foregoing, I am of the view that the statements of the accused persons corroborated each other and buttressed by the evidence of PW1 that the accused persons agreed to carry out the robbery and that they acted in concert.
See the following cases:-
– UPAHAR VS THE STATE (2003) 6 NWLR PART 81 PAGE 230
– KAYODE VS THE STATE (2016) 7 NWLR PART 1511 PAGE 199
Consequent upon the foregoing, I am of the view that the Appellant conspired with the other accused persons to commit the crime. Also from the
21
totality of the evidence placed before the Court including the Confessional Statement made by the appellant, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the Appellant committed the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed Robbery for which he was convicted.
In the final analysis, the issue is hereby resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
This appeal therefore lacks merit and it is dismissed.
The Judgment of the lower Court in charge No – AB/19R/2014 – BETWEEN THE STATE VS (1) LEKAN AJANI (2) JIMOH MOMODU (Appellant) delivered on the 25th day of June 2015 is hereby affirmed. Appeal Dismissed.
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: My learned brother, Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA gave me the benefit of reading in advance, the judgment just delivered.
Upon careful perusal of the record of appeal and the judgment of my learned brother, I am of the view that this appeal has no merit. It is hereby dismissed. I abide by the consequential order made by my learned brother.
FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the judgment delivered by learned brother, Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA.
22
The law is trite that once a confessional statement is admitted in evidence it becomes part of the case for the prosecution and the trial Judge is bound to consider it for its probative value. See AKPAN Vs STATE (2001) 15 NWLR (PT. 737)745: SANI Vs STATE (2018) 8 NWLR (PT 1622) 412, EGBOGHONOME Vs. THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 306)383. In OKPAKO Vs. THE STATE (2018) 9 NWLR (PT 1624) 213, the Supreme Court, per Aka’ahs, JSC held that:
“It is settled Law that once a confessional statement is admitted in evidence, it becomes part of the case of the prosecution which probative value the trial Judge is bound to consider.”
In the instant appeal the Appellant made confessional statements which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits C and J. They were admitted after a trial-within-trial was conducted. The Appellant has not been able to impugn the integrity of Exhibits C and J. The learned trial Judge was thus right when he attached probative value and acted on them.
It is for the foregoing and the fuller reasons contained in the lead Judgment that I also find this appeal unmeritorious and it is accordingly dismissed by me. I affirm the
23
Judgment of the trial Court.
24
Appearances:
TAIRU ADEBAYO For Appellant(s)
Mrs. F.E. BOLARINWA ADEBOWALE (Chief State Counsel) with her Adekunle Manuwa (Assistant Chief State Counsel) both of the Ogun State Ministry of Justice For Respondent(s)
