LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

SARAFA BABALOLA v. THE STATE (2019)

SARAFA BABALOLA v. THE STATE

(2019)LCN/13476(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 11th day of June, 2019

CA/IB/513C/2017

 

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

SARAFA BABALOLA Appellant(s)

AND

THE STATE Respondent(s)

RATIO

THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

In criminal Prosecution, it is settled law that the standard of proof required is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, if the commission of a crime by a party to any proceedings is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
See New ? ITU VS. STATE (2016) LPELR New ? 26063 (SC).
Nonetheless, 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: –
– ITU VS. STATE (SUPRA).
– DIBIE VS. STATE (2004) 14 NWLR PART 893 PAGES 284-285.
In the discharge of proof, there are three ways by which the Prosecution can prove the commission of a crime: –
(a). By evidence of eye witness.
(b). By Confessional Statement.
(c). By circumstantial evidence where direct or Confessional Statements are lacking. 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 ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
(b). That said robbery was an Armed Robbery.
(c). That the Appellant was one of those who took part in the robbery.
See the following cases: –
– ATTAH VS. STATE (2010) 10 NWLR PART 1201 PAGE 190.
– ALUFOHAI VS. STATE (2014) LPELR New ? 24215 (SC).
– EWUGBA VS. STATE (SUPRA). PER BADA, J.C.A.

THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy has been held in a number of decided cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to 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 the following cases: –
– KAYODE VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR – 40028 (SC)
– YAKUBU VS THE STATE (2014) LPELR New ? 22401 (SC)
– SULE VS THE STATE (2009) 17 NWLR part 1169 PAGE 33
The ingredients of the offence of conspiracy are: –
– There must be an agreement between two or more persons.
– The two or more persons must agree to do an unlawful act.
– They must agree to do a lawful act by illegal means.
New ?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 acts of the parties concerned. PER BADA, J.C.A.

THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI

A defence of Alibi is a fundamental defence open to any person standing trial for any crime. An accused person who raises the defence of Alibi is in effect denying participation or taking part in the commission of the offence on the ground that as at when the time when the crime allegedly occurred, he was somewhere other than the scene of crime and could not consequently have been involved in the commission of the crime with which he was charged.
The burden is on the prosecution to investigate and disprove the Alibi. The failure to investigate and check the reliability of the Alibi would raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court or tribunal and lead to the quashing of a conviction imposed in disregard of this requirement.
See – SHEHU VS THE STATE (2010) ALL FWLR PART 523 PAGE 1841.
But where the prosecution is able to show that the accused person was at the scene of crime when the offence was committed by an unquestionable evidence (as it is in this case) then the defence of Alibi will not avail him. See – EGWUMI vs STATE (2013) 13 NWLR PART 1372 PAGE 525. 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 Oyo State in the Ibadan Division in CHARGE NO: – I/82C/2012 – BETWEEN: THE STATE VS. (1). ALABA AKINOLA, (2). SARAFA BABALOLA, (3). SOLA KOLAWOLE, (4). IBRAHIM GBEDEOGUN delivered on the 16th day of March 2017.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the Appellant was charged, arraigned and tried before the lower Court on a four counts charge consisting two counts of Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and two counts of the offence of Armed Robbery contrary to Section 6(b) and Punishable under Section 1(2)(a) respectively of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R 11 Volume 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Judge in his Judgment delivered on 16th day of March 2017 found the Appellant guilty of two of the four counts of Conspiracy and Armed Robbery. He convicted and sentenced him to death.

New ?The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower Court appealed to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant

1

formulated three issues for the determination of this appeal. The said issues are reproduced as follows: –
New ?(1). Whether or not the offences of Armed Robbery and Conspiracy was conclusively, established against the Appellant.
(2). Whether or not it was right for the learned trial Judge to rely on the alleged Confessional Statements of the Appellant to secure his conviction for the offences of Armed Robbery and Conspiracy.
(3). Whether or not it was right for the learned trial Judge not to consider the Alibi of the Appellant.New ?

The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his own case formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The said issue is reproduced as follows: –
New ?Whether the Prosecution proved the case of Conspiracy and Armed Robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.New ?

At the hearing of this appeal on 22/5/2019 the learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Judgment of Oyo State High Court delivered on 16/3/2017. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 20/6/2017.
New ?
The AppellantNew ?s Brief of Argument was filed on 12/3/2019 and deemed as properly

2

filed on 10/4/2019. There is also the AppellantNew ?s Reply Brief of Argument filed on 8/4/2019.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted the two Briefs of Argument and relied on them as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed.

On his own part, the learned Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on 1/4/2019. He adopted the said RespondentNew ?s Brief and relied on it as his argument in urging that the appeal be dismissed.

I have carefully examined the issues formulated for the determination of the appeal by Counsel for the parties. The issues are more or less the same and the RespondentNew ?s sole issue encapsulates the issues formulated on behalf of the Appellant. I will therefore rely on the issue formulated for the determination of the appeal on behalf of the Respondent.

ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
New ?Whether the Prosecution proved the case of Conspiracy and Armed Robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.New ? (Distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).
New ?
The learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act Cap E 14 of 2011

3

which states that when the commission of a crime is directly an issue in any proceedings, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and also Section 135(1) of the same Act which placed the burden of proof on the Respondent to establish that the Appellant committed the offences of Armed Robbery and Conspiracy.

He stated that three elements are required to establish Armed Robbery.
(i). That there was robbery.
(ii). That it was an Armed Robbery.
(iii). That the accused/Appellant was one of the robbers.
He relied on the case of: –
– NWOKOCHA VS. AG OF IMO STATE (2016) LPELR New ? 40077 (SC).
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there was no admission from the Appellant that he participated in the robbery of 16/10/2011.
He relied on the following cases: –
– STATE VS. GWANGWAN (2015) LPELR New ? 24837 (SC).
– AGBOOLA VS. STATE (2013) 8 SCM.
– PAGE 157, (2013) 11 NWLR PART 1366 PAGE 619.
New ?
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the photograph of where gunshot broke the glass of the house of PW1 was not tendered in Court. And also, the evidence that a side of

4

the cutlass was used to hit the heavily pregnant wife of PW1 were suppressed. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the following cases: –
– OGOGOVIE VS. STATE (2016) SC PART 1 PAGE 1 AT 4.
– IKEMSON VS. STATE (1989) 6 SC PART 1 PAGE 114.
– BOZIN VS. STATE (1985) 5 S.C. REPRINT PAGE 106.

It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that contradiction in the dates of the offence given by PW4 ought to have been resolved in favour of the Appellant. It was also stated that the gun allegedly used was not tendered in evidence.

He relied on the case of: –
– EYO VS. STATE (2012) ALL FWLR PART 657.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Alibi of the Appellant that he was sleeping in his room on the day of the incident. This according to him was not investigated. He submitted that this should be resolved in favour of the Appellant.

He relied on the following cases:
– ANYANWU VS. STATE (1986) 5 NWLR PART 43 PAGE 612.
– OKANLAWON VS. STATE (2015) LPELR New ? 24838 (SC).
– IKEMSON VS. STATE (1989) 3 NWLR PART 110 PAGE 455.
New ?
On the issue of Confessional Statement, it was submitted on

5

behalf of the Appellant that the learned trial Judge did not subject the Confessional Statement to proper guide as advised in the case of New ?SIMON VS. STATE (2017) LPELR New ? 41988 (SC).
– MADJEMU VS. STATE (2001) 9 NWLR PART 718 PAGE 349.
– AZABADA VS. STATE (2014) LPELR New ? 23017 (SC).

It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that they were tortured before the Confessional Statements were obtained. And for Confessional Statement to be valid it must be voluntary. He relied on the following cases: – ADEYEMI VS. STATE (2014) LPELR New ? 23062 (SC)
– GIRA VS. STATE (1996) 4 NWLR PART 443 PAGE 375.
On the issue of the failure of the learned trial Judge to consider the Alibi of the Appellant, it was submitted that the Police refused to investigate the Alibi. He relied on the following cases: –
– EKE VS. STATE (2011) 11 LPELR New ? 1133 (SC).
– AYAN VS. STATE (2013) LPELR New ? 20932 (SC).
– SOWEMIMO VS. STATE (2004) 11 NWLR PART 885 PAGE 515 AT 526.
– AKPAN VS. STATE (2002) 12 NWLR PART 780 PAGE 189.
New ?
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the alleged confession of the Appellant and

6

other Accused persons on which the learned trial Judge relied was never a confession to the crime of 16/10/2011.
It was submitted that the conviction of the Appellant was misplaced. The following cases were relied upon: –
– NWOSU VS. STATE (1998) 8 NWLR PART 562 PAGE 433 AT 435.
– IBINA VS. STATE (1989) 5 NWLR PART 120 PAGE 238.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant finally urged this Court to resolve the issue in the appeal in favour of the Appellant, allow the appeal and Judgment of lower Court quashed.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that the essential ingredients of the offence of Armed Robbery are: –
(a). That there was a robbery.
(b). That the robbery was an Armed Robbery.
(c). That the accused was one of the Robbers.
He relied on the case of: –
– EWUGBA VS. STATE (2018) 7 NWLR PART 1618.
It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the ingredients of Armed Robbery was proved by aggregation of evidence.
New ?
It was also contended that upon evaluation of the admitted Confessional Statement that the trial Court found that even though the Appellant did not confess in any of his

7

statements to being a part of the robbers that attacked PW1New ?s house on 16th of October 2011, circumstantial and direct testimonies of both the other accused persons and the Prosecution witnesses placed the Appellant squarely at the scene and indeed as having taken part in the robbery.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent also argued that the commission of a crime by an accused person can be established in any of the following ways or methods namely:-
(a). Through the testimony of an eye witness or witnesses who witnessed the act of the commission of the offence, by the accused person, or
(b). By Confessional Statement made voluntarily by the person accused of the commission of the offence, or
(c). By circumstantial evidence.

He submitted that the Prosecution was able to prove the case against the Appellant at the trial Court by a combination of the above stated methods.
New ?
It was also submitted on behalf of the Respondent that an Appellate Court would be careful not to dislodge a finding of fact by the trial Court except in special circumstances, as the trial Court has the opportunity of evaluating the demeanor of witnesses

8

and so is better placed to determine the weight to be placed on testimonies of each witness. He relied on the case of: –
– OLAKUNLE VS. STATE (2018) 6 NWLR PART 1614 PAGE 91.

On the issue of Alibi raised by the Appellant that he was sleeping in his house at the time the offence was committed, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant did not give any other evidence in proof of same.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent finally submitted that the aggregation of facts and evidence before the trial Court are enough when placed together to disclose a picture that the offence was committed and that the Appellant was one of those who committed the offence of Armed Robbery.

He finally urged that this Court should discountenance the argument of the Appellant and dismiss the appeal in its entirety.

In his Reply Brief of Argument, the learned Counsel for the Appellant reiterated his earlier submission that there was no shred of admission on the part of the Appellant that he committed the offence of Armed Robbery in any of the Confessional Statements he made.
New ?
He then submitted that a conviction based on such

9

Confessional Statement should not be allowed to stand. He relied on the following cases: –
– WAKALA VS. STATE (1991) 8 NWLR PART 211 PAGE 552.
– ALARAPE VS. STATE (2001) 5 NWLR PART 705 PAGE 79.
– EVBUOMWAN VS. COP (1961) WNLR PAGE 257.
– OZAKI VS. STATE (1990) 1 NWLR PART 124 PAGE 92.
– SUBERU VS. STATE (2010) 8 NWLR PART 1197 PAGE 586.

On the defence of Alibi raised by the Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the learned trial Judge refused to countenance the defence. He went further that the defence was raised at the earliest opportunity by the Appellant which provided a good ground for the police to investigate and take a decision whether or not the defence could avail the Appellant. He relied on the following cases: –
– OCHEMAJE VS. STATE (2008) 15 NWLR PART 1109 PAGE 57.
– NJOVENS VS. STATE (1973) 5 SC PAGE 12.
– IKEMSON VS. STATE (SUPRA)
– ODIDIKA VS. STATE (1977) 2 SC PAGE 21.
New ?
RESOLUTION
In criminal Prosecution, it is settled law that the standard of proof required is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, if the commission

10

of a crime by a party to any proceedings is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
See New ? ITU VS. STATE (2016) LPELR New ? 26063 (SC).
Nonetheless, 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: –
– ITU VS. STATE (SUPRA).
– DIBIE VS. STATE (2004) 14 NWLR PART 893 PAGES 284-285.
In the discharge of proof, there are three ways by which the Prosecution can prove the commission of a crime: –
(a). By evidence of eye witness.
(b). By Confessional Statement.
(c). By circumstantial evidence where direct or Confessional Statements are lacking.

The Appellant and his other cohorts were charged and tried at the lower Court for the offences of Conspiracy and Armed Robbery.
New ?
It is trite that whenever an accused person is charged with the offence of Armed Robbery, the

11

burden of proof is on the Prosecution to prove the following ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
(b). That said robbery was an Armed Robbery.
(c). That the Appellant was one of those who took part in the robbery.
See the following cases: –
– ATTAH VS. STATE (2010) 10 NWLR PART 1201 PAGE 190.
– ALUFOHAI VS. STATE (2014) LPELR New ? 24215 (SC).
– EWUGBA VS. STATE (SUPRA).

In order to prove the ingredients of the offence, PW1 (Musiliu Lasisi) of Ita Merin Yidi Gagansi Ona-Ara LGA, Ibadan a brick layer testified among others as follows: –
New ?I remember 16 October, 2011, we were asleep, some people were trying to remove our ceiling so as to gain access to our house in the night New ?
New ?I woke up on hearing gunshot. New ? They broke into the house, went to my door and entered into my room one came near me, one was pointing a gun at me and threatened to shoot me. I asked him not to shoot me but to take what he wants.
One took our lantern and used it to hit my pregnant wife on her head and also used the side of a cutlass to hit

12

her. New New New New New New They demanded for money from her. They collected N85,000.00 and her telephone handset. They beat her also.
They robbed me of N27,000.00 and my telephone handset.
They stole the telephone handsets of three of my children. That is all they collected from us inside our house.
They then left.
I reported to the Police in the morning New New New The police brought some people who said they were the one that robbed me. New New New The Police asked them who shot the gun and one ALABA who is the 1st accused person said he was the one.
New ? But I could recognize the 2nd accused person. He lives 3 houses to my house. I can recognize him very well.
Cross Examination by Mr. Babatunde Falola for the 2nd Accused (Appellant).New ?
NIL

A careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 set out above showed that all the three ingrediences of the offence of Armed Robbery were established beyond reasonable doubt.
New ?
The lower Court painstakingly considered the separate ingredient as stated earlier in this Judgment before coming to the decision that the Appellant is guilty. The lower Court found

13

that though the Appellant did not confess in any of the statements made to the police to being part of the robbers that attacked PW1New ?s house on the 16th day of October 2011 but circumstantial and direct evidence of PW1 and other Prosecution witnesses placed the Appellant squarely at the scene and as having taken part in the robbery.

The PW3 whose evidence was not controverted by the Appellant at the lower Court stated among others as follows:
New ?My name is Aderoju Abiola, I am a Corporal with the Nigerian Police with Force No-393581. I am attached to Ogbere Police Station. I know the accused persons. On 16th October 2011, one Lasisi Musiliu reported a case of robbery at Ogbere Police Station.
New New New We invited the said Lasisi to the station and he could only identify Sarafa Babalola as one of the robbers as they live in the same area. The accused persons later confessed that on that day they robbed Musiliu Lasisi they slept in Sarafa BabalolaNew ?s house before they carried out the operation in the mid-night. OjokuNew ?s real name is Sarafa Babalola. (See page 212 of the record of Appeal).
New ?
The proof of the offence

14

was further established by the evidence of PW4 when he testified that the Appellant as the 2nd Defendant led them to the house of the woman he sold the TECHNO telephone handset to called Dasola. (See page 213 of the record of appeal).

It must not be forgotten that a TECNO telephone was among the items reportedly stolen from the house of PW1. This is coupled with the fact that PW1, who is the victim in this case was able to identify the Appellant as one of the robbers and that he lived three houses from his own house.

The PW1 was not cross examined on his testimony by the Counsel for the Appellant who was the 2nd Defendant at the lower Court.

The evidence of PW1 was further corroborated by the fact that the stolen TECNO telephone was recovered from who the Appellant sold it to.

I am of the view that the Prosecution was able to prove the offence against the Appellant at the lower Court by a combination of testimony of PW1 who is the victim of the robbery and by circumstantial evidence of recovery of the TECNO telephone stolen from the house of PW1. And also, by the testimonies of other witnesses.
New ?
All the above showed that
– there

15

was robbery
– that the said robbery was an Armed Robbery and
– the Appellant was one of the robbers who robbed PW1 while armed with gun and other dangerous weapons.

Furthermore, I am also of the view that the evidence of PW1 alone would have been sufficient to discharge the burden placed on the Prosecution, this is because, a Court can and is entitled to act on the evidence of one single witness if the witness is believed, given the surrounding situation in the case.
A single credible witness can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt except where the law requires corroboration.
See the following cases: –
– ONAFOWOKAN VS. THE STATE (1987) 3 NWLR PART 61 PAGE 538 AT 552, (1987) 7 SCNJ PAGE 233.
– OGOALA VS. THE STATE (1991) 2 NWLR PART 175 PAGE 509 AT 533, (1991) 3 SCNJ PAGE 61.
– EFFIONG VS. THE STATE (1998) 8 NWLR PART 562 PAGE 362 (1998) 5 SCNJ PAGE 158.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the learned trial Judge relied on the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant in convicting him.
New ?I am of the view that what the Learned trial Judge did was just to buttress the testimony of PW1

16

with the alleged confessional statements of all the accused persons. But it must be realized that even without that, a single credible witness like PW1 can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt.

Another Limb of the issue under consideration is conspiracy.
Conspiracy has been held in a number of decided cases to be an agreement by two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to 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 the following cases: –
– KAYODE VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR – 40028 (SC)
– YAKUBU VS THE STATE (2014) LPELR New ? 22401 (SC)
– SULE VS THE STATE (2009) 17 NWLR part 1169 PAGE 33
The ingredients of the offence of conspiracy are: –
– There must be an agreement between two or more persons.
– The two or more persons must agree to do an unlawful act.
– They must agree to do a lawful act by illegal means.
New ?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

17

from certain acts of the parties concerned.

The testimony of the PW1 set out earlier in this Judgment showed that more than one person robbed the PW1 on the day of the incidence.

PW1 testified among others as follows: –
New ?…The police and the robbers entered my house.
The Policemen asked them who shot the gun and Alaba who is the 1st accused person said he was the one New New New

PW3 in his own case testified among others as follows: –
New New New I asked them to take me to another place they had robbed and they took me to GangansiNew ?, the house of Mr. Musiliu Lasisi the same person who reported a case of robbery on 16th October 2011.”

The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the pieces of evidence above is that the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robbery by the Appellant and his cohorts has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Appellant also raised the defence of Alibi that he was sleeping in his house but he did not give any further evidence to shed more light on that statement.
New ?
A defence of Alibi is a fundamental defence open to

18

any person standing trial for any crime. An accused person who raises the defence of Alibi is in effect denying participation or taking part in the commission of the offence on the ground that as at when the time when the crime allegedly occurred, he was somewhere other than the scene of crime and could not consequently have been involved in the commission of the crime with which he was charged.
The burden is on the prosecution to investigate and disprove the Alibi. The failure to investigate and check the reliability of the Alibi would raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court or tribunal and lead to the quashing of a conviction imposed in disregard of this requirement.
See – SHEHU VS THE STATE (2010) ALL FWLR PART 523 PAGE 1841.
But where the prosecution is able to show that the accused person was at the scene of crime when the offence was committed by an unquestionable evidence (as it is in this case) then the defence of Alibi will not avail him. See – EGWUMI vs STATE (2013) 13 NWLR PART 1372 PAGE 525.
New ?In this appeal under consideration, the PW1 who is the victim of the robbery of 16th October 2011 while testifying in Court stated

19

as follows: –
New New New I could recognize the face of the 2nd accused person as he lives 3 houses to my house. I can recognize him very well. The day he was brought he was begging people for money and bread. He is a labourer…New ?
In this appeal, there is a clear evidence linking the accused person with the alleged crime because PW1 recognized him and PW1 was not even cross-examined on this point by Counsel for the Appellant before the lower Court. Identification parade is therefore not necessary in this case.
See the following cases: –
– EMMANUEL UGWUMBA VS. THE STATE (1993) 6 SCNJ PAGE 217.
– FATAI VS. STATE (2013) LPELR New ? 20182 (SC).
– IBRAHIM VS. THE STATE (1991) 5 SCNJ PAGE 129.
On the whole on the defence of Alibi, I am of the view that this defence will not avail the Appellant because he was recognized by PW1 whose evidence fixed the accused to the scene of crime, and a man cannot be said to be at a different location while allegedly committing an offence at another location at the same time.
See New ? ASUQUO VS. STATE (2016) LPELR New ? 40597 (SC).

In conclusion on this issue I am of the

20

view that there is evidence on record upon which the learned trial Judge relied when he held that the Prosecution proved the offences of Conspiracy and Armed Robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

This sole issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.

Consequent upon the foregoing, I am of the view that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.

The Judgment of the lower Court in CHARGE NO: – I/82C/2012 – BETWEEN: THE STATE VS. (1). ALABA AKINOLA, (2). SARAFA BABALOLA, (3). SOLA KOLAWOLE, (4). IBRAHIM GBEDEOGUN delivered on the 16th day of March 2017 as far as the Appellant (SARAFA BABALOLA) is concerned is hereby affirmed.
Appeal dismissed.

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the judgment in this appeal by my Lord Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA whereby the judgment of the trial Court New ? the High Court of Oyo State was affirmed in regards to the appeal of the appellant.

The evidence of PW1 which the trial Court accepted is direct and positive enough for the trial Court to act upon strengthened by the PW3 and PW4. The conclusion reached

21

is inescapable.
I therefore agree.

ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.: I read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Jimi Olukayode Bada JCA, I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. There is evidence on record upon which the learned trial judge relied when he held that the prosecution proved the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery against the appellant beyond reasonable Musiliu Lasisi who was a victim of the robbery incident.

New ?The appeal is dismissed, I abide by the consequential order in the lead Judgment.

22

Appearances:

MR. F. R. ADENIJIFor Appellant(s)

MR. KEHINDE AINA with him, O. B. BIOKU, ESQ.For Respondent(s)

 

Appearances

MR. F. R. ADENIJIFor Appellant

 

AND

MR. KEHINDE AINA with him, O. B. BIOKU, ESQ.For Respondent