ABDULRAHEEM SAKIRU v. THE STATE
(2019)LCN/12771(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 1st day of March, 2019
CA/IL/C.86/18
RATIO
CRIMINAL LAW: THE OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY
“Conspiracy has been defined as an agreement by two or more persons acting in concert or in combination to accomplish or commit an unlawful/illegal act coupled with an intent to achieve the agreement?s objective. It is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. See STATE VS. SALAWU (2011) 12 SC (PT. IV) P. 191; (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1279) P. 580; (2011) LPELR-8252 (SC); KAYODE VS. STATE (2016) LPELR-40028 (SC) P.32, PARAS. A-B and YUSUF VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2017) LPELR-43830 (SC) P.37, PARAS. C-D.” PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
CRIMINAL LAW: THE OFFENCE OR ARMED ROBBERY
“On the second offence, the offence of armed robbery could simply be defined as stealing plus violence, used or threatened. See ARUNA VS. THE STATE (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) 125 and TANKO VS. STATE (2009) LPELR-3136 (SC) PP. 29-30, PARAS. E-D.” PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF A SOLE WITNESS NEEDS TO BE CORROBORATED
“It is the law that the credible evidence of a sole witness can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt and the Court can convict on such evidence where the evidence is believed considering the circumstances of the particular case where no corroboration is required. See AKPABIO VS. THE STATE (1994) 7-8 SCNJ 429 at 458, SAMUEL CHIDOZIE VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2018) LPELR-43602 (SC) PP.11-12, PARAS. F-B. For a conviction, the evidence of a sole witness must be cogent, unequivocal and believed by the Court. See GIKI VS. STATE (2018) LPELR-43604 (SC) PP. 27-28, PARAS. E-B. In ONAFOWOKAN V. STATE (1987) LPELR-2666 (SC) PP.25-26, PARAS. F-B his Lordship Oputa, JSC on whether a Court can convict on the evidence of a single witness held that: ‘the Court can act on the evidence of a single witness if that witness can be believed given all the surrounding circumstances. The truth is not discovered by a majority vote. One solitary credible witness can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt'” PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
BALKISU BELLO ALIYU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ABDULRAHEEM SAKIRU Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The High Court of Kwara State, presided over by S.D. Kawu (Chief Judge) on the 27th day of March, 2017 convicted the Appellant for the offences of Criminal Conspiracy and Armed Robbery punishable under Section 6(b) and 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
The Appellant was sentenced to death in each of the two offences for which he was convicted. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed against same.
The background facts are that the Appellant was arraigned before the lower Court for the offences of Criminal Conspiracy and Armed Robbery punishable under Sections 6(b) and 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 respectively.
The Appellant on arraignment before the trial Court pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The Respondent called four (4) witnesses and tendered three (3) Exhibits which were marked as Exhibits P1 (Bond on the Motorcycle), P2 (Statement of the 1st Accused person) and P3 (Statement of the Appellant as the 2nd Accused person).
The Appellant’s extra-judicial statement is at pages 7-12 of the printed records of Appeal. The Appellant testified in his defence.
From the Appellant’s four (4) grounds of Appeal, three (3) issues were distilled for the determination of the Appeal thus:
1. Whether the lower Court was right when it convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy and Armed Robbery without the evidence of Muyideen Shittu, the victim and principal witness in the alleged Armed Robbery and without also tendering the alleged weapon used in the Robbery.
2. Whether the lower Court was right when it convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death for the offence of Armed Robbery.
3. Whether the lower Court was right when it convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy.’
The Respondent adopted the three issues formulated by the Appellant.
In arguing the appeal, the learned counsel to the Appellant Tomileye Omole Esq., appearing with A. I. Ajayi Esq., adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on the 29th day of August, 2018 as his argument in urging us to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court. In arguing his issue one (1) it was submitted that the lower Court was wrong to have convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death for the offences of Criminal conspiracy and armed robbery without the evidence of Muyideen Shittu, the victim and the principal witness in the alleged Armed Robbery. Also, wrong when the Court convicted the Appellant to death when the weapon used during the robbery was not tendered in evidence.
It was submitted that the alleged victim did not testify throughout the trial at the lower Court. It was argued that the victim was a vital witness whose evidence is fundamental to establish that there was an armed robbery. See OCHIBA VS. STATE (2011) 17 NWLR (PT.1277) 669 at 694, PARAGRAPHS A-C, KOLAWOLE VS. THE STATE (2015) 8 (PT.1460) P.184 at 159-160, PARAGRAPHS H-G, OGUDO VS. STATE (2011) 12 SC PT. 2, USUFU VS. STATE (2007) 3 NWLR (PT. 1020) 94, OSUAGWU VS. STATE (2016) 16 NWLR (PT. 1537) P.31 at PP. 62-63, PARAGRAPHS H-E, STATE VS. ISAH (2012) 16 NWLR (PT. 1327) P. 63 at 630, PARAGRAPHS B-E; (2012) LPELR-15519 (SC) 93 and SULE VS. STATE (2016) 3 NWLR (PT.1499) P.392 at 415, PARAGRAPHS A-C.
It was argued that the evidence of the Respondent?s witnesses, PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 are all hearsay which is inadmissible in law. Also, that the Respondent relied on the Appellant?s confessional statement, Exhibit P3 to convict the Appellant without any evidence on record linking the Appellant to the alleged offence outside the statement which was challenged on the grounds of involuntariness. It was also argued that the trial Court ought not to have accorded any probative value to the hearsay evidence of PW1 ? PW4. See, IKARIA VS. STATE (2014) 1 NWLR (PT.1389) 649 at 653 ? 654, PARAGRAPHS B-G.
It was submitted further that a confessional statement does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. See, SHANDE VS. STATE (2005) 1 NWLR (PT. 907) PAGE 218 at 240, PARAGRAPHS F-G, STATE VS. AZEEZ (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 424) 1423 at 1451 -1452, PARAGRAPHS F-A; (2008) 4 SC, 188 at 209 PARAGRAPHS 215-216 and NNAJIOFOR VS. PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2015) LPELR-24666.
We were urged to hold that the decision of the trial Court does not accord with the interest of justice.
On the Appellant’s issue two, it was submitted that the Respondent did not prove the ingredients of Armed Robbery against the Appellant to the effect that:
i. That there was a robbery incident
ii. That the robbery was an armed robbery and
iii. That the accused person in particular was the armed robber.
See OSUAGWU VS. STATE (2016) 16 NWLR (PT. 1537) 31 at P. 55, PARAGRAPHS A-E, ALIU VS. STATE (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1442) p.51 at 86-87 and OSETOLA VS. THE STATE (2012) 17 NWLR (PT. 1329) P.25 at 27, PARAGRAPHS G-H. It was argued that for a conviction, all the ingredients of the offence must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
It was the contention of the learned counsel to the Appellant that the evidence of the PW2 ? PW4 that the appellant was one of the robbers was strongly denied by the appellant and that the denial remained unshaken under cross examination. Further, that the PW1 – PW4 were not eyewitnesses, talkless of proving that there was an armed robbery.
Also, that there was no exhibit to the effect that what took place was an armed robbery. The prosecution was said not to have proved the necessary ingredients of the offence of armed robbery, reliance was placed on the cases of AFOLALU VS. STATE (2010) 6-7 MJSC 187 at 219-220, PARAGRAPHS G-A, OSUAGWU VS. STATE (supra) at 64 ? 65, PARAGRAPHS F-E, EYO VS. STATE (2014) 1 NWLR (PT.1835) P.324 at 340, PARAGRAPH C and ABIODUN VS. F R N (2009) 7 NWLR (PT.1141) 489 at 509, PARAGRAPHS E-G.
On the third issue, it was submitted that the Appellant denied conspiring with anyone to commit any offence. Further, that the Respondent did not discharge the burden on it that the Appellant conspired with anyone to commit armed robbery, as required by law. See JIMOH VS. STATE (2012) 3 NWLR (PT. 1286) P. 7 at 175-176, PARAGRAPHS G-A. It was argued that the Respondent failed to establish that the Appellant took part in the alleged conspiracy throughout the trial. See YAKUBU VS. STATE (2014) 8 NWLR (PT. 1408) P. 111 at 123, PARAGRAPHS F-H and GARBA VS. C. O. P. (2007) 16 NWLR (PT. 1060) P. 378 at 405, PARAGRAPHS A-B.
It was contended that the Respondent failed to show the specific role or part played by the Appellant in the alleged conspiracy throughout the trial and that the Respondent failed to contradict the evidence of the Appellant that he did not conspire with anyone. Also, that the lower Court wrongly inferred that the Appellant had conspired with another to commit armed robbery, the inference was said to be speculative.
It was reargued that the Respondent did not establish a common intention between the Appellant and another to commit the offences for which he was charged. See AKPA VS. STATE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1106) 72 at 101, PARAGRAPHS E-F, OMOGODO VS. THE STATE (1981) 5 SC 5; ADEPETU VS. THE STATE (1998) LPELR ? 135 and SALISU ISIAKA VS. THE STATE (2011) LPELR ? 8833.
It was concluded that there was doubt in the prosecution?s case which ought to have been resolved in favour of the Appellant as the 2nd accused person. See AL-MUSTAPHA VS. STATE (2013) 17 NWLR (PT. 1383) 350 at 416, PARAGRAPH A and IKUMONIHAN VS. STATE (2014) 2 NWLR (PT. 1392) 564 at 591.
The prosecution was said to have failed in proving its case at the trial Court and that it was not the duty of the trial Court to have made out a case for the prosecution.
The respondent in response adopted the three issues as formulated by the Appellant. In arguing the first issue, J. A. Mumini Esq., the learned Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Kwara State adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 24th September, 2018 in urging us to dismiss the appeal. The learned DPP agreed on the ingredients to be proved in a charge of armed robbery but, argued that the number of witnesses in such proof is irrelevant, reliance was placed on the cases of ESENE VS. THE STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 910) 338 at 361; OGUDO VS. THE STATE (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1278) at PAGE 1, BOZIN VS. THE STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 8) P. 465 and AKWUOBI VS. THE STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 893) P. 1169 at 1197.
It was submitted that Exhibits P2 and P3, the confessional statements of the Appellant and his co-accused person should be read together and considered along with the testimony of the PW2 and PW3 as well as that of the PW4, an eye witness to the armed robbery incident established beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offences of criminal conspiracy and Armed Robbery for which the Appellant was rightly convicted.
It was argued that Exhibit P3 (the appellant’s confessional statement) alone is enough to ground a conviction in the present case, reliance was placed on the cases of ALASSAN VS. STATE (2001) TNSCOR 120, ONWUMERE VS. THE STATE (1991) 5 SC-NJ 150 at 163, ISAAC STEPHEN VS. THE STATE (1986) 12 SC 450 at 470.
On the inability of Muyideen Shittu to testify, it was submitted that it was not deliberate but, beyond the effort of the prosecution at the trial Court. Further, that proof of an offence in criminal matters is not limited to eye witnesses account alone but, proof could be by the following means:
a. Direct Evidence of an eye witness
b. By Circumstantial Evidence;
c. By a confessional Statement.
It was submitted that the learned trial Chief Judge was right to have relied on Exhibit P3, the confessional statement of the Appellant and that of the direct evidence of the PW4 an eye witness.
The learned DPP refuted the submission of the learned counsel to the Appellant that the evidence of the PW1 – PW4 is hearsay.
Further, on the issue of not tendering the motorcycle robbed from the victim, it was submitted that the motorcycle was released on bond to the victim, Muyideen Shittu without objection, Page 43 of the records. In the alternative, it was argued that non tendering of an item allegedly robbed would have no effect on the prosecution?s case where sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution on the stolen item. See ESENE VS. THE STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 910) PG. 338 at PG. 376-377.
On the second issue, it was submitted that no matter how serious an offence is, proof is not beyond every shadow of doubt but, beyond reasonable doubt. See, also JUA VS. THE STATE (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 521), 427. Further, that the prosecution led sufficient evidence to establish the essential ingredients of the offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt, earlier highlighted by the learned counsel to the appellant. See, OGUDO VS. THE STATE (2011) 18 NWLR (PT.1278) 1, BOZIN VS. THE STATE (1985) 5 NWLR (PT.8) PG. 1265.
It was concluded that the evidence of the PW2, PW3 and PW4 as well as Exhibits P2 and P3 established beyond reasonable doubt the offence of armed robbery against the appellant for which he was convicted.
On the third issue, it was submitted that the gist of the offence of conspiracy is the inference of the meeting of the minds of the conspirators towards the commission of the crime or the offence in question. See JIMOH VS. THE STATE (2012) 3 NWLR (PT. 1286) PAGE 7 at 175 ? 176. It was submitted that when the evidence of the PW2, PW3 and PW4 (pages 44-80 of the printed records of appeal) is considered alongside the confessional statement of the Appellant as contained in Exhibit P3, it would lead the Court to the conclusion that the Appellant and his co-accused Taiye Ismaila conspired to commit the offence of Armed Robbery. Reference was made to the following cases, STATE VS. SALAWU (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 614) 1 at PAGE 29, ADEKUNLE VS. THE STATE (1989) 12, SCNJ, NWOSU VS. THE STATE (2004) ALL FWLR (PT. 218) at 916.
It was concluded that, it is not mandatory for the prosecution to establish that the conspirators met before carrying out their nefarious activities. Further, that it is sufficient that evidence is led from which the Court can deduce inference of a meeting of the minds of the conspirators as was done in the present case. See ONYENYE VS. THE STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 643) 1810 at 1832-1833. We were urged to hold that the prosecution led sufficient evidence linking the appellant and his co-accused person with the commission of the Robbery operation.
Conspiracy has been defined as an agreement by two or more persons acting in concert or in combination to accomplish or commit an unlawful/illegal act coupled with an intent to achieve the agreement?s objective. It is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. See STATE VS. SALAWU (2011) 12 SC (PT. IV) P. 191; (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1279) P. 580; (2011) LPELR-8252 (SC); KAYODE VS. STATE (2016) LPELR-40028 (SC) P.32, PARAS. A-B and YUSUF VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2017) LPELR-43830 (SC) P.37, PARAS. C-D.
On the second offence, the offence of armed robbery could simply be defined as stealing plus violence, used or threatened. See ARUNA VS. THE STATE (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) 125 and TANKO VS. STATE (2009) LPELR-3136 (SC) PP. 29-30, PARAS. E-D.
It was argued by the learned counsel to the Appellant that the offences for which the Appellant was tried and convicted could not have been proved without the evidence of the victim, Muyideen Shittu. It is the law that the credible evidence of a sole witness can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt and the Court can convict on such evidence where the evidence is believed considering the circumstances of the particular case where no corroboration is required. See AKPABIO VS. THE STATE (1994) 7-8 SCNJ 429 at 458, SAMUEL CHIDOZIE VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2018) LPELR-43602 (SC) PP.11-12, PARAS. F-B. For a conviction, the evidence of a sole witness must be cogent, unequivocal and believed by the Court. See GIKI VS. STATE (2018) LPELR-43604 (SC) PP. 27-28, PARAS. E-B. In ONAFOWOKAN V. STATE (1987) LPELR-2666 (SC) PP.25-26, PARAS. F-B his Lordship Oputa, JSC on whether a Court can convict on the evidence of a single witness held that:
‘the Court can act on the evidence of a single witness if that witness can be believed given all the surrounding circumstances. The truth is not discovered by a majority vote. One solitary credible witness can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt.
But if the evidence of that solitary witness is either incredible (see case of FRANK RICE (1927) 20 CR. APP.R.21), or doubtful given all the surrounding circumstances then the appellate Court should hold either that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt or that it will be quite unsafe to convict on that evidence and either way the appeal should be allowed.”
See also IGBO V. STATE (1975) LPELR-1447 (SC); (1975) 9-11 NSCC 415 at 418 and ESENE VS. THE STATE (2017) ALL FWLR. (PT. 910) PG. 338 at 375-376.
As rightly argued by the learned DPP, it is settled that offences could be proved by the following means:
1. By direct Evidence of an eye witness;
2. By circumstantial evidence;
3. By a confessional statement.
In the present case, the learned trial Chief Judge utilized the contents of Exhibit P3, the confessional statement of the Appellant as well as the evidence of the PW4. A large portion of Exhibit P3 was reproduced by the learned trial Chief Judge at pages 123-124 of the printed records of appeal. The Appellant gave a graphic picture of how he met up with his co-accused Taiye Ismaila at Taiye’s house before they left for the operation. Part of the statement of the Appellant to the police, Exhibit P3 is reproduced below for clarity. It went thus:
When I heard that Taiye Ismaila Lawal have been released sometime in December in 2012. I came to Ilorin from Kishi to greet him. I went to his house at Edun Street Ilorin which I met him and his wife at home and I returned to Kishi that very day after the visit. On Saturday being 5/01/2013 at about 1900 hrs. I was at Kishi in Oyo State when I received Taiye Ismaila Lawal call, through GSM that I should come and join him at Ilorin. On Sunday to carry out snatching of Motor Cycle operation, that since he was released from prison yard he has no money to spend. I then reply him that he should be expecting me at Ilorin. On Sunday being 06/01/2013 at about 0800 hrs. I arrived at Taiye Ismaila house in Ilorin which his wife met me and her husband at home. On the same date at about 1145 hrs myself and Taiye Ismaila left his house to Niger road to eat and after eating we decided to look for a Bajaj boxer motorcycle which we eventually got one.
We stop the commercial cyclist and told him that we are going to somewhere which Taiye was the one that mentioned the name of the place, and I don?t know the Okada boy charge us because the bargain is between Taiye and the cyclist. On our way at Obbo road I told the okada man to stop that I wanted to buy something which Taiye understand what I wanted to buy. I bought dry granded pepper in a lylon. Then we continue our journey at a point Taiye told the okada boy to branch to one untarred road which the okada did, after we branch we asked the okada boy to stopped, then myself drop from the motorcycle and stand at the back while Taiye who was sitting next to the okada boy drop and stand at the front of the motorcycle as if he wanted to paid the money. I then touch the okada boy on his back drawing his attention toward me as if I wanted to said something, immediately the okada boy look back I sprayed the dry granded pepper on his eye. The okada released his motorcycle to us and started shouting thief! Thief! Thief!!! To prevent him from exposing us I use an iron rod to hit the okada boy twice on his head. We eventually succeeded in dispossessing the Bajaj motorcycle which Taiye was the one escaping with the said motorcycle and he was knock down by one car while he wanted to join the main road and immediately Taiye was knock down I ran away from the scene. I later join one okada to escaped…
Moreso the iron rod I used in hitting the okada boy was picked from Taiye house for the purpose of the operation and Taiye is fully aware that I picked iron rod from his house to arm myself for the operation and after the operation I threw the said iron rod into the nearby bush. My intention was to sell the said Bajaj Motorcylce at Togo if we should have succeeded.
The appellant gave a clear picture of the role he played in the armed robbery operation that took place on the day in question. The learned trial judge was right to have relied on Exhibit P3, the confessional statement of the appellant. The appellant’s confession that he committed the offences for which he was tried and convicted is direct, positive, duly made and no doubt that he made it willingly. It is enough for a conviction without corroboration. See IBRAHIM KAMILA VS. THE STATE (2018) LPELR 43603 (SC), YESUFU VS. STATE (1976) LPELR 3527 (SC), KABIRU VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL (OGUN STATE) (2009) 5 NWLR (PT. 1134) P. 209, SIMEON VS. STATE (2018) LPELR 44388 (SC) and OKPAKO VS. STATE (2018) LPELR 43875 (SC). Contrary to the argument of the learned counsel to the Appellant, the victim, Muyideen Shittu need not testify before the appellant could be convicted.
On the failure of the prosecution to tender the weapon used in the armed robbery, there is no law requiring the tendering of the weapon of an alleged robbery to establish the guilt of an accused person.
Weapons in an armed robbery are usually easily disposable, as in the present case, an iron rod which in Exhibit P3 the appellant stated that he got it from his friend?s house before the operation and he gave the clear reason what it was for. The appellant also stated that he threw it into a nearby bush after the operation. All that is required is that the robber was armed when he robbed the victim. The prosecution need not tender the weapon used in an armed robbery. See JAMES SIMON VS. THE STATE (2017) LPELR 41988 (SC). In AWOSIKA VS. THE STATE (2018) LPELR 44351 (SC) PP. 42 – 43, PARAS D ? E, his Lordship Sanusi, JSC, on whether the weapon used to carry out an armed robbery ought to be tendered by the prosecution to secure a conviction summed it up thus:
‘With greatest respect to the learned justices of the Court of Appeal, to secure a conviction for armed robbery, all that the prosecution must prove are:- (i) That there was an armed robbery; (ii) That the accused person or persons was/were armed during the armed robbery or in company with someone amongst them who was so armed.
Once the prosecution proves the above ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, their failure to tender the offensive weapon or the arms, cannot result in acquittal of the accused person because of the possibility of the accused person doing away with the offensive weapon they used, after the commission of the offence in order to exculpate himself from criminal responsibility or to escape detection. See the cases of MARTIN VS. STATE (1997) 1 NWLR (PT. 481) 355; OKOSI VS. A.G. BENDEL STATE (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 100) 642; OLAYINKA VS. STATE (2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 1040) 561 SC. I must also stress here, that there is no principle of law which requires the prosecution to mandatorily tender the weapons used in an alleged robbery in order to establish the guilt of the accused person. In fact, in Olayinka’s case (supra), it was held that since there was no assertion from the prosecution witness that any weapon was recovered from the accused, proof of use of any weapon at the alleged robbery operation was not necessary to establish.
See also OKOH VS. STATE (2008) LPELR ? 8352 (CA). I hold that tendering of the weapon used was not necessary for the prosecution to have proved its case. Further, sufficient evidence was led by the prosecution on the stolen item in line with Exhibit P3. Issue one is resolved against the appellant.
On the appellant’s issue two, in every criminal trial proof is beyond reasonable doubt and not proof beyond a shadow of doubt. The essential ingredients to be established for the offence of armed robbery had earlier been highlighted in this judgment and no doubt there was a robbery, the robbery was carried out with the use of offensive weapons, the iron rod and ground pepper. The appellant gave a graphic account of how he blew the ground pepper into the eyes/face of his victim as well as how he hit the victim on the head with the iron rod to prevent him from escaping.
The evidence of the PW2 (Inspector Salami Mathew) attached to the Nigerian Police SARS Office, Ilorin as an Investigator and PW3 (Sadiq Hafsat WCPT) attached to the ?A? Divisional Police Station, Ilorin was clear as to the investigation they carried out and their finding that the appellant was one of the two people that robbed Muhideen Shittu of his motorcycle on the fateful day. Also, the evidence of the PW4 (Dr. Bamidele Opeyemi Folounsho) who hit the appellant and his friend while trying to get away on the motorcycle, while the appellant escaped from the scene, his colleague (the 1st accused at the trial) was arrested at the scene. While at the scene, the victim came out of the bush with blood coming out from his head and he narrated his ordeal in the hands of the appellant and his colleague as a commercial motor cyclist who had carried the appellant and his colleague as passengers before the incident. The PW4 gave a clear account of what transpired at the scene.
The evidence of the PW3 and PW4 confirmed the contents of Exhibit P3 to the effect that the appellant participated in the armed robbery of Muyideen Shittu who was dispossessed of his motorcycle on the 6th day of January, 2013. Proof of armed robbery was also dealt with in resolution of issue one. I hold that the prosecution led sufficient evidence linking the appellant with the commission of the offence of armed robbery and that the appellant conspired with his colleague/friend Taiye to carry out the unlawful act. The learned trial Chief Judge was right to have convicted the appellant of the offences charged. At pages 126 – 127 of the printed records, the trial Court held thus:
The 2nd accused said he was at Kishi on 6/1/2013 working.
He did not give details of the time of his alleged stay in Kishi to show that he could not have been involved in the commission of the alleged offence in Ilorin. He also did not say that he was in Kishi in his statement to the Police, Exhibit P3 to enable them properly investigate it.
‘201…
The confessional statements of the two accused persons admitted as Exhibits P2 and P3 are consistent with the prosecution evidence, particularly that of PW3 and PW4.
I am satisfied that both accused persons conspired together and robbed one Muyideen Shittu by hitting him on the head with an iron rod after spraying him in the eyes, with dry powdery pepper along Admiralty Villa, Ilorin Kwara State on 6th day of January, 2013’
The above view is unassailable and I cannot fault same. The offence of Armed Robbery was proved by the prosecution. Issue two is resolved against the Appellant.
On the appellant’s issue three, in resolution of issue one, the offence of conspiracy was defined to the effect that it is an inference of a meeting of the minds of the conspirators towards the common goal of the commission of a crime or the offence in question. In Exhibit P3, the appellant gave a clear account of how he went to his colleague’s (Taiye) house and planned the robbery of a Bajaj Motorcycle to be specific. The Appellant and his colleague engaged the services of their victim as a commercial cyclist for the purpose of dispossessing him of his Bajaj Motorcycle. In Exhibit P3, the appellant gave a clear account of how he stopped and bought the ground pepper which he and his colleague blew into the eyes/face of their victim and the appellant’s colleague hit the victim on the head with an iron rod in his presence before the victim was dispossessed of his motorcycle. While trying to get away, the motorcycle was hit by the vehicle of the PW4, who stopped to help out, the appellant fled while the appellant’s colleague was arrested on the spot shortly after the victim came out of the bush and identified the appellant and his colleague as those that robbed him. These facts were not disputed by the learned counsel to the Appellant who did not give an alternative account of what happened by explaining the presence of the appellant at the scene of crime and the fact that the motorcycle was found on the appellant shortly after the armed robbery incident.
On the other hand, for the offence of conspiracy to be established, it is not mandatory for the prosecution to establish that the conspirators met before carrying out their nefarious activities. All that is required is that evidence be led from which the Court can deduce inference of a meeting of the minds of the conspirators, a common goal. The evidence of conspiracy is rarely direct. In ADEPOJU VS. STATE (2018) LPELR 44355 (SC) his Lordship Eko, JSC at P.9, PARAS. C – D, on how the offence of conspiracy can be inferred held thus:
Proof of existence of a conspiracy, at common law, is generally a matter of inference deducible from certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them: ARCHBOLD – CRIMINAL PLEADING, EVIDENCE and PRACTICE; 40TH ED., PARAGRAPH 4076 at PAGE 1875.
See ADEKOYA VS. STATE (2017) LPELR ? 41564 (SC) PP. 17 – 18. PARA. A; ONYENYE VS. STATE (2012) 15 NWLR (PT. 1324) 586, P. 9, 36 – 37 and OBIAKOR VS. THE STATE (2002) 10 NWLR PT. 776, PG 612. I hold that the offence of criminal conspiracy was proved against the appellant. The third issue is resolved against the appellant.
In sum, the appeal is unmeritorious; I dismiss same while I affirm the judgment of the learned trial Chief Judge in Suit No. KWS/34C/2013 delivered on the 27th day of March, 2017.
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.: I was privileged to have read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, J.C.A.
I am in entire agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein. I also dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the trial Court
BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J.C.A.: My learned Brother Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JCA has availed me with the draft judgment just delivered before today. I agree with the analysis, reasoning and conclusion reached in the lead judgment and I adopt same as mine. I find no merit in this appeal and I dismiss it. The judgment of the Kwara State High Court delivered on 27th March, 2017 by S. D. Kawu, C.J. is hereby affirmed.
Appearances:
Tomileye Omole, Esq. with him, A.I. Ajayi, Esq.For Appellant(s)
J.A. Mumini, Esq. (Director of Public Prosecution, Kwara State Ministry of Justice) with him, M.T. Danzaki (Senior State Counsel), M.A.Z. Usman (Senior State Counsel 1) and R.K. Abdulkadir (State Counsel 1)For Respondent(s)
