MURITALA SANNI v. THE STATE (2019)

MURITALA SANNI v. THE STATE

(2019)LCN/13753(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 14th day of August, 2019

CA/IB/150C/2017

RATIO

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE: STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LAW

In criminal Prosecution, it is trite that the required standard is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides thus:-
If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceedings civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT: TO PROVE A CRIME BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THE PROSECUTION HAS TO PROVE ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
It is trite that when the ingredients of any particular offence the accused is charged with has been proved then the Prosecution is said to have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. See the following cases:-
– SOLOLA VS THE STATE (2005) 5 S.C. PART 1 PAGE 155.
– JULIUS ABIRIFON VS. THE STATE (2013) LPELR ? 20807 (SC). PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

METHODS USED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED
The guilt of an accused person can be proved through any of the following methods:-
(i). Confessional Statement of the accused.
(ii). Circumstantial Evidence.
(iii). Testimony of eye witnesses or eyewitness.
See the following cases:-
– ITU VS. STATE (2016) 5 NWLR PART 1506 PAGE 443.
– OMOREGIE VS. THE STATE (2017) LPELR ? 42466 (SC). PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

ARSON: DEFINITION AND INGREDIENTS

Arson is defined as the willful and malicious burning of the dwelling house of another. See BLACKLAW DICTIONARY, 7TH EDITION.
All that is required in proving the ingredients of the offence of arson are:-
(i). That a dwelling house was actually set ablaze.
(ii). That the accused person was responsible in doing so and did so intentionally.
See the following case:-
– OKHIRIA VS. STATE (2016) 15 NWLR PART 1535 PAGE 342.
– CHIA VS. THE STATE (1996) 6 NWLR PART 455 PAGE 476. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: DEFINITION

It is an admission made at any time by an accused stating or suggesting by inference that he committed the crime with which he is charged. See- ADEBAYO VS. ATT. GENERAL OF OGUN STATE (2008) 33 NSCQR PART 1 PAGE 1.
A Confessional Statement voluntarily made is an admission by the maker that he committed the offence. It is the best evidence that the accused person committed the offence because it is his own confession.
A Court is entitled to convict an accused based upon his Confessional Statement and in this case Exhibit ?C1?. See- OSUAGWU VS. STATE (2013) 1 ? 2 S.C. PAGE 194.
– SOLOLA VS. THE STATE (2006) VOL. 5 LRCNCC PAGE 166 AT PAGES 199-200. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

ALIBI : WHEN IT WILL NOT AVAIL AN ACCUSED
The Alibi raised by the Appellant cannot avail him because the Prosecution has shown that the accused person was at the scene of crime when the offence was committed by unquestionable evidence.
See- EGWUMI VS. STATE (2013) 13 NWLR PART 1372 PAGE 525. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

CONSPIRACY: DEFINITION

Conspiracy has been held in many decided cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act or do a lawful act by an unlawful means. The two or more persons must be found to have combined in order to ground a conviction.
See-KAYODE VS. THE STATE (2016) LPELR 40028 (SC).
– YAKUBU VS. THE STATE (2014) LPELR 22401 (SC). PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

NONYEREM OKORONKWO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

MURITALA SANNI Appellant(s)

AND

THE STATE Respondent(s)

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of Oyo State High Court of Justice, Ibadan Judicial Division in Charge NO:- I/165C/12 – BETWEEN: THE STATE VS. (1). JEMILU ABUBAKAR, (2). MURITALA SANNI delivered on the 24th day of September 2014 wherein the Appellant was convicted for the offences of Conspiracy and Arson and sentenced to seven(7) years imprisonment on each count and the sentences are to run concurrently.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on or about 15/6/2012, a mob brought a naked man to the Bodija Market Police Station and the Police men on duty allowed only 5 members of the group to enter the Police Station. The others who could not come in became agitated and started throwing stones and thereafter set ablaze the said Bodija Market Police Station, Ibadan. The Police called for reinforcement and tried to repel the members of the mob from burning the Police Station but before the arrival of re-enforcement, they had set the Police Station ablaze. On receiving information both the Appellant and the other accused person were arrested while receiving treatment as a result of injuries they sustained on 15/6/2012.

Prosecution witnesses testified while the Appellant testified on his defence, he did not call any witness.

The Appellant?s case was that he was not at the scene of crime that he was involved in an ?Okada? motorcycle accident resulting in his hospitalization.

At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Judge found the Appellant guilty of the offences of Conspiracy and Arson and he was convicted and sentenced to (7) seven years imprisonment on each count and the sentences were made to run concurrently.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant who is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower Court appealed to this Court.

He formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The said issue is reproduced as follows:-
?Whether the Respondent has proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt to warrant his conviction.?

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent also formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The said issue is reproduced as follows:-
Whether the trial Court was right in holding that the Respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in view of the defence of alibi raised by the Appellant.?

At the hearing of this appeal on 23/5/2019, the learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of Oyo State High Court delivered on 24/9/2014.

The Notice of Appeal was filed on 22/2/2017 pursuant to an order of Court made on 14/2/2017. The Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted on 20/4/2017. The Additional Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court on 6/5/2019. The Appellant?s Brief was filed on 4/5/2017.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted and relied on the said brief as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to the Respondent?s Brief of Argument filed on 13/7/2017 but deemed as properly filed and served on 26/11/2018.

He adopted and relied on the said brief as his argument in urging that the appeal be dismissed.

I have perused the issues formulated for the determination of this appeal by Counsel for the parties. The issues are more or less the same. I will therefore rely on the issue formulated for the determination of the appeal on behalf of the Appellant.

ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
Whether the Respondent has proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt to warrant his conviction.?

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the burden of proof of commission of an offence is on the Prosecution. He relied on Section 138 of the Evidence Act and the case of ? ANI VS. STATE (2009) 16 NWLR PART 1168 PAGE 443 AT 457.

He argued that it is the duty of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. He relied on the following cases:-
– NWODO VS. STATE (1991) 4 N.W.L.R PART 185 PAGE 341 AT 355.
– KABIRU VS. A.G. OGUN STATE (2009) 5 NWLR PART 1134 PAGE 209 AT 229.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Prosecution has failed to prove the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that there was no evidence that the Appellant was at Bodija Market Police Station on 15/6/2012. He relied on the case of ?
TAMTI VS. N.C.S.B. (2009) 7 NWLR PART 1141 PAGE 631 AT 656.

He finally submitted that the evidence adduced by the Prosecution did not prove the offence against the Appellant, and he urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Appellant.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his response submitted that credible evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent which demolished the Alibi raised by the Appellant. It was also submitted that the evidential burden of proof of alibi rests on the Appellant.
He relied on the case of ? MONDAY ONU & 1 OR VS. THE STATE (2001) 10 NWLR PART 722 PAGE 674.

He referred to Exhibit ?C1? i.e. the statement of the Appellant to the Police. He argued that in the said exhibit, the Appellant did not raise the defence of Alibi. He relied on the following cases:-
– PATRICK NJOVENS VS THE STATE (1973) 5 S.C. PAGE 17 AT 65.
– BADEBAYO ADETOLA & 2 ORS VS. THE STATE (1992) 3 NWLR PART 233 PAGE 267.
– HAUSA VS. THE STATE (1994) 6 NWLR PART 350 PAGE 281.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent finally urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Respondent.

RESOLUTION
In criminal Prosecution, it is trite that the required standard is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides thus:-
If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceedings civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.?
It is trite that when the ingredients of any particular offence the accused is charged with has been proved then the Prosecution is said to have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. See the following cases:-
– SOLOLA VS THE STATE (2005) 5 S.C. PART 1 PAGE 155.
– JULIUS ABIRIFON VS. THE STATE (2013) LPELR ? 20807 (SC).
The guilt of an accused person can be proved through any of the following methods:-
(i). Confessional Statement of the accused.
(ii). Circumstantial Evidence.
(iii). Testimony of eye witnesses or eyewitness.
See the following cases:-
– ITU VS. STATE (2016) 5 NWLR PART 1506 PAGE 443.
– OMOREGIE VS. THE STATE (2017) LPELR ? 42466 (SC).
?
The Appellant and the other accused person were charged, arraigned and convicted on a two counts charge of

Conspiracy to commit arson and arson.

The Appellant in this case volunteered a statement which is extra-judicial to the Police.

The statement made by Appellant was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit C1 part of the said statement is reproduced as follows:-
On Thursday 14th June, 2012 myself, Lawal and one other person also named Lawal, when we were sitting, Lawal stood up to go and buy cigarette and on his way going he slapped somebody, but I don?t know the persons name, I then asked Lawal why he slapped the man but he told me to forget about it and as I don?t want to fight so I left there, that was at about 10.00 pm. I heard people shouting from their drammer (sic) place and I asked what happened, they told me that Lawal was stabbed by that man he slapped and he was rushed on the bike to the hospital by my friend called Shake and Abe, my Oga Yususa was shot at the Police Station and we were together, but I did not know that the bullet also touched me, it was other people that told me that there was blood on my shot and I was unconscious when some of my friends rushed me to the hospital? we were five in number that left Iwo Road to Bodija but I was the only Hausa man among them !!!?
(See page 18 of the Record of Appeal)

The PW2 in his testimony before the lower Court stated among others thus.
?Then Inspector Nicola Adole was macheted some struggled with me in an attempt to collect my gun. I fired a shot to scare them. I ran for my life.?
(See page 26 of the record of Appeal)
PW4 in his own case, testified thus:-

I joined the police force 22 years ago in 1991 on 15th June, 2012 when the Police Station was set ablaze at Bodija Police Station .while Muritala Sanni was picked up (arrested) from a hospital Bed at Agbowo area, Ibadan where he was receiving treatment ..?
See page 39 of the record of appeal.

A careful perusal of the Confessional Statement of the accused, the evidence of PW2 and PW4 would reveal that the Appellant actively participated in the offence of Conspiracy and Arson i.e. the burning of the Police Station at Bodija Ibadan. Furthermore the bullet injuries which the Appellant sustained on 15/6/2012 which he confirmed in his statement was as a result of gun shot fired by PW2 while trying to scare away the attackers from burning the Police Station.

Exhibit ?C1? is a Confessional Statement. It is an admission made at any time by an accused stating or suggesting by inference that he committed the crime with which he is charged. See- ADEBAYO VS. ATT. GENERAL OF OGUN STATE (2008) 33 NSCQR PART 1 PAGE 1.
A Confessional Statement voluntarily made is an admission by the maker that he committed the offence. It is the best evidence that the accused person committed the offence because it is his own confession.
A Court is entitled to convict an accused based upon his Confessional Statement and in this case Exhibit ?C1?. See- OSUAGWU VS. STATE (2013) 1 ? 2 S.C. PAGE 194.
– SOLOLA VS. THE STATE (2006) VOL. 5 LRCNCC PAGE 166 AT PAGES 199 ? 200.

The Appellant raised a defence of Alibi that he was hospitalized for injuries he sustained from motorcycle accident.
I am of the view that the Confessional Statement of the Appellant Exhibit ?C1? read along with the testimony of PW2 and PW4 reproduced earlier in this Judgment demolished the Alibi raised by the Appellant that he was not at the scene when Bodija Market Police Station was set ablaze. The gun shot he sustained was that fired by PW2.
The Alibi raised by the Appellant cannot avail him because the Prosecution has shown that the accused person was at the scene of crime when the offence was committed by unquestionable evidence.
See- EGWUMI VS. STATE (2013) 13 NWLR PART 1372 PAGE 525.

The Appellant was also charged with the offence of Conspiracy. Conspiracy has been held in many decided cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act or do a lawful act by an unlawful means. The two or more persons must be found to have combined in order to ground a conviction.
See-KAYODE VS. THE STATE (2016) LPELR ? 40028 (SC).
– YAKUBU VS. THE STATE (2014) LPELR ? 22401 (SC).
The main substance of the offence of Conspiracy is meeting of the 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 acts of the parties concerned. From the evidence of PW2 and PW4 and the Confessional Statement of the Appellant, it could be interfered that the Appellant acted in concert with his cohorts and others at large to set the Bodija Market Police Station ablaze.

Consequent upon the foregoing, I am of the view that the Prosecution/Respondent succeeded in proving the offences of Conspiracy to commit arson and arson against the Appellant at the trial Court beyond reasonable doubt.

This sole issue for the determination of this appeal is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
This appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.

In the result, the Judgment of the lower Court delivered on 24th September 2014 in Charge No- I/165c/12 ? THE STATE VS. (1) JEMILU ABUBAKAR (2) MURITALA SANNI is hereby affirmed.
Appeal Dismissed.

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.: In the lead judgment of my Lord Jimi Olukayode Bada JCA, the following excerpt is manifest. It is that:
“Arson is defined as the willful and malicious burning of the dwelling house of another. See Black Law Dictionary, 7th Edition.
All that is required in proving the ingredients of the offence of arson are:
(i) That a dwelling house was actually set ablaze. the accused person was
(ii) That responsible in doing so and did so intentionally.”

Examining the above definition and conditions for culpability, it is difficult to link the appellant particularly with the number (ii) condition except where one critically examines the evidence of PW2 and PW4 and relate these to the statement of the appellant in Exhibit C1. These are circumstances which combine to fix the appellant with the offence and provide justification for the trial Court to act on such circumstantial evidence.
I agree with the lead judgment in that regard.

ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the lead Judgment of my learned brother Jimi Olukayode Bada JCA just delivered.

I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusions reached. The alibi raised by the Appellant can not avail him because the prosecution has effectively challenged same and has shown that the Appellant was at the scene of crime when the offence was committed.
The appeal lack merit and I also dismissed the appeal.

Appearances:

MR. SEGUN OLOLADEFor Appellant(s)

MR. A.W. GBADEGESHIN Solicitor-General and Permanent Secretary with him is ADEGBOYEGA SALAWU Chief State CounselFor Respondent(s)

Appearances

MR. SEGUN OLOLADEFor Appellant

AND

MR. A.W. GBADEGESHIN Solicitor-General and Permanent Secretary with him is ADEGBOYEGA SALAWU Chief State CounselFor Respondent