BALA v. STATE
(2022)LCN/16041(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, February 11, 2022
CA/KN/247/C/2020
Before Our Lordships:
Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal
Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
KABIRU BALA (Alias MIJI) APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CHARGED WITH A LESSER OFFENCE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED
By the provisions of the Penal Code, an accused person charged and tried with one offence can be convicted of another (lesser) offence different from the one with which he was charged, if the evidence adduced established that other (lesser) offence. See Section 218 of the Penal Code:
1) when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete lesser offence though he was not charged with it.
2) when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a lesser offence, he may be convicted of the lesser offence, although he is not charged with it -PER ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
THE PRINCIPLE GOVERNING CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON FOR A LESSER OFFENCE DISCLOSED BY EVIDENCE
The principle of convicting an accused person for a lesser offence disclosed by evidence, is well established in our laws, and of course, Appellant was not contesting this. See the case of Martins Vs The State (2019) LPELR-48889 SC, where my Lord Abba-Aji, JSC said:
“The power of a Court to convict an accused person for a lesser offence than the one charged is exercised based on certain guidelines. Where the Court exercises this power, the evidence in support of the lesser offence must consist of a combination of some of the essential elements of the original offence charged. The particulars of the lesser offence must be capable of being subsumed in the original charge such that it is possible to carve out the particulars of the lesser offence from the particulars of the original charge. The particulars (or ingredients) of the offence should be set out and the Court (or counsel) should consider whether it is possible to delete some words from the particulars of the offence charged leaving a residue of particulars making up the lesser offence. E.g., a person charged with wounding with intent to do grievous harm may be convicted of unlawful wounding where the intent to do grievous harm is not proved. Similarly, a person charged with armed robbery punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R11 LFN 2004 may be convicted of robbery simpliciter, where there is no evidence that the accused was armed. See Per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC in SALIU V STATE (2018) LPELR-44064 (SC). In the instant appeal, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution succeeded only in proving robbery since no offensive or dangerous weapon was found to be used -PER ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
ON WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ACT OF GROSS INDECENCY
I think the mere act of invading the privacy of the prosecutrix with intent to have sexual intercourse with her, and establishing contact with her, causing her fear and harassment and making her to cry, are sufficient ingredients of proof of Gross Indecency on the victim, once it is established that the entry into the room and/or touch of the victim (prosecutrix) was not with the consent of the prosecutrix.
Of course, in this case at hand, the prosecutrix was incapable of consenting to such act (or move towards sexual activity) being a minor of less than 14 years of age, and a person of unsound mind. See Section 282(1)(e) of the Penal Code Law of Jigawa State and the recent cases of Ibrahim Yusuf Vs The State: CA/KN/21C/2021; Rabiu Usman Vs The State: CA/KN/20C/2021 and Dauda Malam Mato Vs The State: CA/KN/19C/2021, all delivered by this Court on 28/1/2022, where we restated the law, that an under aged girl cannot consent to sexual activity – once she is under 14 years of age and/or of unsound mind.
In the case of Ali Vs Kano State (2018) LPELR-44201 CA, this Court provided the definition or meaning of Gross Indecency, as follows:
“Act of gross indecency has not been defined by the Penal Code but the Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition at page 771 defined indecency as the condition or state of being outrageously offensive, especially in a vulgar or sexual way. Indecent assault is an offence of aggravated assault and overlaps with sexual assault. It follows that an act of gross indecency denotes an aggravated assault that is grossly or grievously offensive in a vulgar or sexual way. It is an unlawful and unacceptable sexual activity or behavior forced upon another person against his or her will or consent and includes the act of inserting ones hand or finger in the vagina of the other without that other’s consent or against her will. In the other words, acts of gross indecency includes any unlawful sexual activity or behavior short of penetration of the penis.”
It does not appear the list of conduct constituting Gross Indecency was exhaustive, in that judgment as the depressive conduct of Appellant in this case, as shown in his confessional statement (Exhibits A & A1) clearly give him away for Gross Indecency on the minor and person of unsound mind. -PER ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT TO ESTABLISH CONVICTION
By law, a confessional statement is enough evidence, and, in fact the best evidence, to establish commission of offence, coming from the accused person, himself, where the confession is adjudged voluntarily made. See the case of Uhara Vs The State (2021) LPELR-55512 (CA):
“We have held, several times, that a confessional statement alone is a conclusive and sufficient evidence to establish conviction, and, in fact, the best evidence of the commission of the offence, coming directly from the accused person himself, and closing every door of defence against him, except where the issue/defence of provocation can be invoked. See FRN Vs Iweka (2011) LPELR – 9350 SC, where it was held that confessional statement is the best evidence of proof of crime and can be accepted as satisfactory evidence, upon which alone the accused can be convicted. See also Ogoala Vs The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 509 at 534.” -PER ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Appellant was convicted for offence of Gross Indecency and Criminal trespass by the Jigawa State High Court in Charge No. JDU/109C/A/2019, delivered on 30th September, 2020, presided over by Hon. Justice Umar M. Sadiq, whereof Appellant was sentenced to 7 and 5 years, respectively, and the sentences to run concurrently. He brought this appeal, being dissatisfied.
At the trial Court, Appellant, as accused person, was charged, as follows:
FIRST HEAD OF CHARGE:
That you, Kabiru Bala (m), 27 years, of Ruwan Dawa Village, Jahun LGA, on or about the 13th day of January, 2019, around 1700 hrs, at Ruwan Dawa Village, Jahun Local Government of Jigawa State, within the Jigawa Judicial Division, did commit illegal act when you unlawfully entered into the house of one Suleiman Ibrahim with intent to commit an offence, to wit: rape, you thereby committed offence of Criminal trespass contrary to Section 342 of the same Code.
SECOND HEAD OF CHARGE:
That you, Kabiru Bala (m), 27 years, of Ruwan Dawa Village, Jahun LGA, on or about the 13th day of January, 2019, around 1700 hrs, at Ruwan Dawa Village, Jahun Local Government of Jigawa State, within the Jigawa Judicial Division, did commit illegal act when you had unlawfully sexual intercourse with one Hauwa Suleiman (f), 13 years, of sound mind, you thereby committed the offence of rape under Section 282(1)(e) of the Penal Code, Cap. P3, Laws of Jigawa State, 2012 punishable under Section 283 of the Penal Code (Miscellaneous Amendments) Law , No 9, 2014.
Appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge when he was arraigned on 13/2/2020, upon the charge being read and translated to him in Hausa language and he appeared to understand the same. The prosecution called witnesses and the Appellant testified in his defence, and after hearing the case and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, the trial Court held for the prosecution and convicted Appellant on Count 1, but in respect of the 2nd Count, convicted him for a lesser offence of gross indecency, and sentenced, him accordingly.
The learned trial Judge, stated, as follows:
On this particular incident, the accused admitted to enter the room in order to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix who was aged 12 (sic) years and of unsound mind. But according to the accused he ran out of luck when he matched the leg of the prosecutrix, who then cried which attracts (sic) the attention of the PW1 who entered the room and arrested the accused person.
In Exhibit A1, the accused said “I could remember on 13/01/2019 at about 1700 hours in the night. I enter into the house of one Mallam Suleiman of Ruwan Dawa, then enter into a room inside the house, I ‘saw one girl by name Hauwa’ alias Takano. She was sleeping I then make an attempt to have sexual intercourse with her then her father came into the room and meet (sic) me hidden (sic) behind the wall of the room he then light on his torchlight and he saw me he held me and brought me out of the room he then took me before our village head and they took me to Jahun Police Station as a matter of facts I did not have sexual intercourse with her but make an attempt to have sexual intercourse to put my penis inside her private part and her father arrested me and took me to village head.
It is instructive to say that an accused person could be convicted on his confessional statement alone. This is because a confession is defined as an admission made at any time by accused charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime and this includes both extra judicial and judicial confession. It also includes an incriminating admission made that is not direct and positive and short of a full confession. See Section 28 of the Evidence Act 2011. See also OKANLAWON VS. STATE (2015) LPELR 24838 (SC).
That a confessional statement made by an accused and properly admitted in law is the best guide to the truth of the part taken by an accused.” OGOALA VS. STATE (1991). See ADEBAYO VS. STATE (2014) LPELR 22988 (SC).
In the instant (sic) the confession of the accused that in Exhibits A and A1 and his evidence before the Court was to the effect that the accused had committed an act of gross indecency. This is because it is deemed as an advancement of sexual intercourse shot (sic) of ingredient D which is the requirement of penetration by accused describing his action as attempt to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix who was under 16 years of age as inscape of giving her consent as the double tarriel of being underage and also of unsound mind.
To end, I found the ingredients of the offence of gross indecency under Section 285A as proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
As provided by Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the case as mentioned at sections of this code, the accused is charged with one offence and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence with which he might have been charged under the provisions of that section, he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed although he was not charged with it. Whereas Section 218(1) on the other hand provides-
“When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete lesser offence though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a lesser offence, he may be convicted of the lesser offence, although he is not charged with it.”
The combined effect of the sections of the Criminal Procedure Code above was to the effect that the particulars of the offence of rape and that of gross indecency are almost similar, the only requirement is that in the offence of rape where penetration is a must whereas in gross indecency, it is not required as a must.
However, on this, defence counsel has not proffer (sic) any submission but the law is trite that the burden of proof is the prosecution and the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the ingredient of gross indecency as provided under Section 285A of the Penal Code (Miscellaneous Amendment) No.9 of 2019.
The accused in his defence, which is neither here or there, has not gave (sic) any defence known to (sic) as he was fixed to the scene of crime, arrested by the PW1 and handed to the Police, where the accused volunteered Exhibits A and A1, which entails a confession as to how he committed the offence.
In the whole, the accused person has not succeeded in showing any reasonable doubt as provided under Section 135(3) of the Evidence Act 2011. For all the reasons as contained in this judgment, I hereby resolve this issue in favour of the prosecution.
That is the decision Appellant appealed against, as per the Notice of Appeal, filed on 30/11/2020 (on Pages 83 to 86 of the Records of Appeal).
Appellant filed his brief of arguments on 28/1/2021 and distilled a sole Issue for the determination of the Appeal, namely:
Whether the evidence led by the Respondent has established the essential ingredients of the offence of gross indecency to warrant the conviction of the Appellant by the trial Court for the said offence. (Ground 2)
(He abandoned the ground 1 of the Appeal)
The Respondent filed its brief on 2/2/2021 and also distilled a lone issue for determination:
“Whether the prosecution had proved the offences of Criminal Trespass and Gross Indecency against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt?”
Arguing the appeal, Appellant’s Counsel, Abdulaziz Ibrahim, Esq submitted that the trite position of the law is that a criminal offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; he cited cases and Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011. He argued that the prosecution did not prove the offence of rape with which he was charged, hence the trial Court resorted to convicting him for offence of gross indecency, Counsel said that even then, the ingredients of offence of gross indecency were not proved. He reproduced Section 285A of the Penal Code (Miscellaneous Amendment) Law of 2014, of Jigawa State which hosts the offence, as follows:
“Whoever commits an act of gross indecency upon the person of another without his consent or by virtue of force or threats or compels a person to join him in the commission of the act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than seven years.”
From the foregoing, Counsel said, to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove:
i. That the accused person committed an act of gross indecency upon the person of another;
ii. That the other person did not consent to the act;
iii. That he compelled that person by use of force or threats to join him in the commission of the gross indecent act.
Counsel said there was no evidence to show that Appellant committed an act of gross indecency upon the person of the prosecutrix. He relied on the cases of Mohammed Ali Vs Kano State (2018) LPELR-44201 CA for the meaning of gross indecency, where this Court held:
“Act of gross indecency has not been defined by the Penal Code but the Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition at page 771 defined indecency as the condition or state of being outrageously offensive, especially in a vulgar or sexual way. Indecent assault is an offence of aggravated assault and overlaps with sexual assault. It follows that an act of gross indecency denotes an aggravated assault that is grossly or grievously offensive in a vulgar or sexual way. It is an unlawful and unacceptable sexual activity or behavior forced upon another person against his or her will or consent and includes the act of inserting ones hand or finger in the vagina of the other without that other’s consent or against her will. In the other words, acts of gross indecency includes any unlawful sexual activity or behavior short of penetration of the penis.”
Counsel said the evidence led by the Respondent in this case did not disclose any unlawful sexual activity or behavior by Appellant upon the body/person of the prosecutrix to warrant his conviction for gross indecency by the Court. He said that the only evidence that would have established offence of gross indecency was that of the PW1, but that nothing in his evidence suggested that when he (PW1) entered the room, he found Appellant engaged in an unlawful sexual activity or behavior upon the body person of the prosecutrix; that PW1 did not state that Appellant was naked, when he (PW1) entered the room or that he saw Appellant caressing or touching the body of the prosecutrix, which would have satisfied the first ingredients of the offence.
Counsel faulted the trial Court for holding that Appellant was fixed to the scene of crime and had confessed as to how he committed the offence in Exhibits A & A1. Counsel said that mere being at the scene of crime is not evidence of guilt, and he relied on the case of Garba Vs State (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt 584) 148 at 160. He asserted that there was no evidence to establish the ingredients of the offence of gross indecency.
He urged us to resolve the issue for Appellant and to allow the Appeal.
Counsel for Respondent, Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu (A.G. Jigawa State) said the trial Court was right to convict the Appellant. He stated the 3 main ways of proving commission of crime:
1. by confessional statement of the accused,
2. by circumstantial evidence, and
3. by evidence of eye witness(es)
He relied on Okanlawon Vs State (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt 1489) 445; Alufohai Vs State (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt 1445) 172; Dele Vs State (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt 1229) 508, and said that any of the three ways of proof, suffices. He added that though the prosecution has the duty of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt, that does not amount to proof beyond all iota or shadow of doubt. He relied on Eke Vs State (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt 556) 430; Abeke Vs State (2007) ALL FWLTR (Pt 366) 644; Paul Vs State (2015) ALL FWLR (Pt 778) 893 and Kolawole Vs State (2015) ALL FWLR (Pt 778) 864 at 886.
Counsel said that all that the prosecution was expected to do to secure conviction was to prove, by compelling evidence, the commission of the offence of criminal trespass and the offence of gross indecency, which he said the prosecution acquitted itself. He said that the evidence on criminal trespass was never challenged and that Appellant confessed that he entered the house/room of the girl in the night hours with the intent to have sexual intercourse with or canal knowledge of the girl called Hauwa alias Takano. Counsel referred us to pages 61 to 63 of the Records – evidence of Appellant.
On the Gross Indecency, counsel referred us to the page 79 of the Records of Appeal where the trial Court found that from the confession of the Appellant and evidence in Court the accused (Appellant) had committed the act of gross indecency; that the attempt or advancement to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix was only short of penetration by the accused, and that even the Appellant described what he did as attempt to have sexual intercourse with the girl, who was underaged and of unsound mind.
Counsel said that the findings of the trial Court was sound and that appellate Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact of the trial Court, which are supported by evidence on records; that since the trial Court had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses, it was better placed to assess them and come up with the conclusions reached. He relied on the case of Idika & Ors Vs Erisi & ors (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt 66) 503.
Counsel said that the trial Court was right to convict Appellant of a lesser offence of Gross Indecency, instead of rape with which he was charged and tried, since the ingredients of penetration was not proved. He relied on the case of Maja Vs State (1980) 1 NCR 212; Okwuwa v State (1964) LPELR-25195; Saliu Vs State (2018) LPELR-44064 (SC); Segun Vs State (2018) LPELR-44693 SC and Amadi Vs State (2019) LPELR-47041 (SC).
He urged us to dismiss the appeal.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
I noticed that Appellant was not appealing against his conviction for criminal trespass into the house of PW1 and room of his mother and underaged daughter in the late night hours. In his confessional statement (Exhibits A & A1), he admitted the offence and disclosed that his intention for breaking into the said room was to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, an under-aged girl of unsound mind! He (Appellant) was caught in the room, after his contact with the girl woke her up and caused her to cry, which cry alerted the father (PW1) to come to the rescue of the prosecutrix. Appellant was charged and tried for rape, but because he was yet to actualize his objective, fully, by penetration of the vagina of the prosecutrix (one of the vital ingredients of rape), the trial Court opted to convict him on a lesser offence of Gross Indecency, pursuant to Section 285A of the Penal Code (Miscellaneous Amendment) Law of Jigawa State, 2014. By the provisions of the Penal Code, an accused person charged and tried with one offence can be convicted of another (lesser) offence different from the one with which he was charged, if the evidence adduced established that other (lesser) offence. See Section 218 of the Penal Code:
1) when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete lesser offence though he was not charged with it.
2) when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a lesser offence, he may be convicted of the lesser offence, although he is not charged with it.
The principle of convicting an accused person for a lesser offence disclosed by evidence, is well established in our laws, and of course, Appellant was not contesting this. See the case of Martins Vs The State (2019) LPELR-48889 SC, where my Lord Abba-Aji, JSC said:
“The power of a Court to convict an accused person for a lesser offence than the one charged is exercised based on certain guidelines. Where the Court exercises this power, the evidence in support of the lesser offence must consist of a combination of some of the essential elements of the original offence charged. The particulars of the lesser offence must be capable of being subsumed in the original charge such that it is possible to carve out the particulars of the lesser offence from the particulars of the original charge. The particulars (or ingredients) of the offence should be set out and the Court (or counsel) should consider whether it is possible to delete some words from the particulars of the offence charged leaving a residue of particulars making up the lesser offence. E.g., a person charged with wounding with intent to do grievous harm may be convicted of unlawful wounding where the intent to do grievous harm is not proved. Similarly, a person charged with armed robbery punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R11 LFN 2004 may be convicted of robbery simpliciter, where there is no evidence that the accused was armed. See Per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC in SALIU V STATE (2018) LPELR-44064 (SC). In the instant appeal, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution succeeded only in proving robbery since no offensive or dangerous weapon was found to be used.
In this case, at hand, Appellant had confessed that his intention of breaking into the room of the prosecutrix that night hours, was to have sexual intercourse with the underaged girl of unsound mind. He had physical contact with the girl and got her to cry, which noise brought PW1 to the scene to rescue the girl from the actual rape. Surprisingly, Appellant’s counsel still argues that Gross Indecency was not established, because there was no unlawful sexual activity or behavior by Appellant; that Appellant had no contact with the body/person of the prosecutrix… that Appellant was not seen in the room naked or caressing or touching the body of the prosecutrix to satisfy the ingredients of Gross Indecency.
I think that submission of Appellant’s Counsel was too technical or simplistic understanding of ingredients of Gross Indecency, as he probably wanted to wait for the unlawful sexual act to commence before he could conceptualize the commission of the offence. A man who broke into the room of the prosecutrix in the dead of night, with the intention to have sexual intercourse or unlawful carnal with a minor of unsound mind, and had established body contact with the minor, causing her to shout for help or to cry, in protest of the unlawful invasion of her privacy, cannot argue that he was yet to strip for the sexual act, or to start caressing and touching the private part(s) of the prosecutrix to actualize his mission, to be held for Gross Indecency!
I think the mere act of invading the privacy of the prosecutrix with intent to have sexual intercourse with her, and establishing contact with her, causing her fear and harassment and making her to cry, are sufficient ingredients of proof of Gross Indecency on the victim, once it is established that the entry into the room and/or touch of the victim (prosecutrix) was not with the consent of the prosecutrix.
Of course, in this case at hand, the prosecutrix was incapable of consenting to such act (or move towards sexual activity) being a minor of less than 14 years of age, and a person of unsound mind. See Section 282(1)(e) of the Penal Code Law of Jigawa State and the recent cases of Ibrahim Yusuf Vs The State: CA/KN/21C/2021; Rabiu Usman Vs The State: CA/KN/20C/2021 and Dauda Malam Mato Vs The State: CA/KN/19C/2021, all delivered by this Court on 28/1/2022, where we restated the law, that an under aged girl cannot consent to sexual activity – once she is under 14 years of age and/or of unsound mind.
In the case of Ali Vs Kano State (2018) LPELR-44201 CA, this Court provided the definition or meaning of Gross Indecency, as follows:
“Act of gross indecency has not been defined by the Penal Code but the Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition at page 771 defined indecency as the condition or state of being outrageously offensive, especially in a vulgar or sexual way. Indecent assault is an offence of aggravated assault and overlaps with sexual assault. It follows that an act of gross indecency denotes an aggravated assault that is grossly or grievously offensive in a vulgar or sexual way. It is an unlawful and unacceptable sexual activity or behavior forced upon another person against his or her will or consent and includes the act of inserting ones hand or finger in the vagina of the other without that other’s consent or against her will. In the other words, acts of gross indecency includes any unlawful sexual activity or behavior short of penetration of the penis.”
It does not appear the list of conduct constituting Gross Indecency was exhaustive, in that judgment as the depressive conduct of Appellant in this case, as shown in his confessional statement (Exhibits A & A1) clearly give him away for Gross Indecency on the minor and person of unsound mind.
In the Exhibit A1, Appellant had confessed:
“…I could remember on 13/01/2019 at about 00hrs in the night I enter (sic) into the house of one Mallam Suleiman Ibrahim… I then entered a room inside the house. I saw one girl by name Hauwa… She was sleeping. I then make (sic) an attempt to have sexual intercourse with her, then her father came into the room and meet (sic) me hidden (sic) behind the wall of the room… I did not have sexual intercourse with her but I make (sic) an attempt to have sexual intercourse with her to put my penis inside her private part and her father arrested me…” See page 23 of the records.
I think that was sufficient evidence, coming from Appellant, himself, to establish the offence of Gross Indecency, or of attempted Rape. (It appears Appellant would have preferred a lesser offence of attempted rape, which carries stiffer punishment than Gross Indecency).
By law, a confessional statement is enough evidence, and, in fact the best evidence, to establish commission of offence, coming from the accused person, himself, where the confession is adjudged voluntarily made. See the case of Uhara Vs The State (2021) LPELR-55512 (CA):
“We have held, several times, that a confessional statement alone is a conclusive and sufficient evidence to establish conviction, and, in fact, the best evidence of the commission of the offence, coming directly from the accused person himself, and closing every door of defence against him, except where the issue/defence of provocation can be invoked. See FRN Vs Iweka (2011) LPELR – 9350 SC, where it was held that confessional statement is the best evidence of proof of crime and can be accepted as satisfactory evidence, upon which alone the accused can be convicted. See also Ogoala Vs The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 509 at 534.”
I see no merit in this appeal as I resolve the issue against Appellant and dismiss the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower Court.
BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the lead judgment of my learned brother, ITA G. MBABA, JCA. His reasoning and conclusion are in tandem with mine. I have nothing useful to add. I also dismiss the appeal.
ABUBAKAR MU’AZU LAMIDO, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother, ITA G. MBABA, JCA, and I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein that this appeal is unmeritorious and be dismissed. I too dismiss the appeal and abide by all the consequential orders as contained in the lead judgment.
Appearances:
ABDULAZIZ IBRAHIM, ESQ. For Appellant(s)
DR. MUSA ADAMU ALIYU (A.G., JIGAWA STATE). For Respondent(s)