SIRAJO MUHAMMED v. THE STATE (2014)

SIRAJO MUHAMMED v. THE STATE

(2014)LCN/7251(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 30th day of May, 2014

CA/K/226/C/2011

RATIO

WORDS AND PHRASES: BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

WORDS AND PHRASES: CONFESSION

A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. See; Saidu vs State 1982 3 SC 41.
Confession in criminal procedure, like admission in civil procedure, is the strongest evidence of guilt on the part of an accused person. It is stronger than the evidence of an eye witness because the evidence comes out from the horse’s mouth, who is the accused person. There is no better evidence and there is no need for further proof since what is admitted needs no further proof. See; Akpa Vs State 2008 14 NWLR (Pt.1106) pg.72 at 100-101. The duty of the trial court is to consider the circumstances under which it was given and to decide what weight is to be attached to it. See the cases;
Nwachuku vs State 2002 2 NWLR (Pt.751) at 366.
Iga Vs Amakiri 1976 11 S.C 1. per ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A

WHETHER A VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CONVICTION

EVIDENCE: WHETHER AN APPELLANT RELYING ON IMPROPER EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE HAS THE DUTY TO IDENTIFY THE EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY EVALUATED OR NOT EVALUATED.

JUSTICES

ABDU ABOKI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

SIRAJO MUHAMMED “DONDOS” Appellant(s)

AND

THE STATE Respondent(s)

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of Katsina State High Court delivered on 28/11/2006 by S. A. Mahuta J. Whereby the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the offence of Armed Robbery.
The charge against the Appellant who was the 2nd accused person and two other accused persons he was charged along with is adumbrated as follows;
THE CHARGE:
“COUNT ONE:
That you (1) Basiru Nalado, (2) Sirajo Muhammd “Dondos” and (3) Nura Sabo on or about the 30th day of January, 2002 at Kankiya in Kankiya Local Government Area of Kastina State did an act to wit; robbed one Alhaji Abubakar Sani of the same address of the following:-
(i) N417,000.00
(ii) One Video Recorder valued at N18,000.00.
(iii) One bundle of Shadda Material valued at N10,000.00
(iv) One Satellite Receiver with Remote Control.
At the time of the robbery you were armed with Cutlasses, Knives, Clubs and Sticks with which you threatened to kill him and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap. 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 as amended.
COUNT TWO:
That you (1) Basiru Nalado (2) Sirajo Muhammed “Dondos’ and (3) Nura Sabo sometimes in April, 2002 at Kankiya in Kankiya Local Government Area of Katsina State did an act to wit; robbed one Hassana Bashir Babba of the same address of the sum of N250,000.00 and Gold Necklace; and at the time of the robbery you were armed with Knives, Clubs and Sticks with which you threatened to kill her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap. 398 laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 as amended.”
The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the 2 counts charge. To prove its case the prosecution called 6 witnesses and tendered 3 Exhibits. The Appellant and 2 other accused persons called 9 witnesses. At the close of their case the prosecution and the defence counsels, were given the opportunity to address the Court.
In convicting the Appellant and 2 other accused persons, the trial Court said inter alia thus;
“…In all cases cited the Court also emphasized the desirability of having some form of evidence outside the confession. In the instance case however I found no such corroborative evidence but then it is also my candid opinion that based on the confessional statements of the accused persons as contained in exhibits A, B and C the Court is left in no doubt that the accused person committed the robberies of 29th January, 2002 and the one in April of the same year. I have therefore found the accused guilty as charged and have accordingly sentenced them to death as provided in section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act Cap.398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990…”
Aggrieved by this decision of the Lower Court the Appellant who is now a prisoner on the death roll at Central Prison Katsina filed a notice of appeal dated 17th April, 2012 pursuant to the leave granted him by this Court. The said notice of appeal contained one ground of appeal and is hereby adumbrated as follows;
GROUND OF APPEAL:
“1. That the decision of the high Court is unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.”
Parties to this appeal exchange their respective brief in accordance with the rules of the Court.
The Appellant’s brief of argument prepared by Ebenezer Obeya Esq. was dated 19th July, 2012 and filed on 23/07/2012. Learned counsel for the Appellant adopted the said brief as the Appellant’s argument in this appeal and urged the Court to find merit in this appeal and quash the conviction and sentence passed on the Appellant by the trial Court.
The Respondent’s brief of argument prepared by Murtala Aliyu Kankia Esq. was dated 13th June, 2013 and file 14/06/2013 but deemed filed on 24/06/2013. Learned counsel to the Respondent adopted the said brief as the Respondent’s argument in this appeal and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit and to affirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant made by the trial Court.
The Appellant in his brief of argument distilled a lone issue from the ground of appeal contained in his notice of appeal and is adumbrated as follows;
1. Whether the trial Court property evaluated the evidence adduced before it and rightly relied on Exhibit B and if not, whether that led to a miscarriage of justice.
The Respondent on its part adopted the Appellant’s lone issue as the issue for determination in this appeal. This appeal shall be determine of the lone issue formulated by the Appellant.
Learned counsel to the Appellant contended that the two (2) counts of Armed Robbery were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that it is clear on the face of the judgment that the Court relied on the retracted confessional statement to convict the Appellant for the two different Robberies for which he was charged along with others.
He submitted that the trial Court found that there was no corroborative evidence outside the retracted confessional statement and in such circumstance; the trial Court should not have convicted the Appellant.
He referred the Court to Page 111 of the printed record.
Learned counsel contended that proper evaluation of evidence demands that the evidence adduced by both parties be assessed and weighed, a mere recital of the evidence adduced without more is inadequate. He maintained that the record of the Court must show how the Court arrived at its conclusion and justify its preference for one piece of evidence over another. He referred the Court to the cases of;
Alake vs The State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.265) at 260.
Ntaha Vs the State (1972) 4 SC 1 at 4.
Solala vs The State (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt.937) 460
Akinmoju Vs The State (2000) 4 SC Pt.1 64.
Nwaeze Vs The State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt.428) at 1
Afarafe Vs The State (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt.205) 79; (2001) 4 SCNJ 162.
Cop vs Donatus Ude (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1260) at 189.
Learned Appellant’s counsel summarised all the evidence relating to the Appellant and submitted that the trial Court can only be said to have come to proper conclusion if those summarised facts in the evidence relating to him were considered and evaluated in the judgment which the trial Court never did.
Learned counsel submitted that a conviction can be grounded solely on a confessional statement where it is positive, direct and unequivocal after testing the truth thereof. But in a situation where the voluntariness is put in doubt, it is always safe to look for some circumstantial evidence to corroborate the confessional statement. He referred the Court to the case of; Sabi Vs The State (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) at 421-437.
Learned counsel also contended that the trial Court did not consider the claim of torture by the Appellant. He submitted therefore that the claim remain unchallenged. He referred the Court to page 70-72 of the printed record.
Learned counsel insisted that the trial Court should have placed little or no reliance on the confessional statement Exhibit B, since there was retraction and unchallenged evidence of torture challenging its voluntariness, which made it more important for the trial Court to seek for other evidence to support it. He referred the Court to unreported Supreme Court case of; Okon Dan Osung in SC.297/2004 delivered on 8th June, 2012 and page 111 line 22 of the printed record.
Learned counsel submitted that it is within the powers of the trial Court to admit the statement in evidence, but having done that, it had to subject it to the prescribed test in order to ground a conviction on it. He contended that the trial Court did not apply even one of the tests and there was no corroborative evidence justifying the reliance placed on exhibit B.
He referred the Court to the cases of;
Adekoye vs The State 2012 9 NWLR (pt.1306) at 547
Dawa Vs The State 1980 8-11 SC 147
R Vs Sykes 1913 8 CR APP. 233
Shurumo Vs State 2010 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) at 65
Abdullahi Sabi Vs The State (supra) at 437-442
Oseni Vs The State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt.1293) at 374-376
Learned counsel invited this Court to consider the findings of the trial Court and its judgment in the light of the above cited cases. He maintained that on a proper evaluation of the accepted evidence before the trial Court the judgment of the court cannot be supported. He referred the court to the case of; Nwosu vs State (1986) 4 NWLR pt.35 page 348 at.359.
Learned counsel contended that the trial Court admitted it could not find evidence that it could use to corroborate the confession; this according to the counsel makes the confessional statement unfit to be regarded as credible to sustain a conviction. Thus, in the face of irreconcilable contradictions between the evidence on record and the confessional statement, the trial court ought not to place probative value on the confessional statement and should have given the Appellant the benefit of doubt.
In conclusion, he submitted that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He urged the court to so hold. He referred the Court to the cases of;
Obue Vs State 1976 2 SC 141
Oladele Vs state 1993 1 NWLR (Pt.269) at 294.
Albert Ikem vs State 1985 1 NWLR (pt.2) at 378.
He urged the court to find merit in this appeal and quash the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and discharge and acquit the Appellant.
Learned Respondent’s counsel on the other side submitted that the Appellants contention that the trial court did not properly evaluate the evidence adduced before it and therefore wrongly relied on Exhibit B to convict and sentence the Appellant to death is vague and unsubstantiated.
He argued that the Appellant counsel did not show any instance from the record where the evidence before the trial Court were not evaluated. He submitted that the trial court evaluated all the evidence adduced before it, to the extent of subjecting Exhibit B to trial within trial, where its veracity and authenticity was tested and after the Court convinced itself of the truthfulness of the statement relied on it to convict the Appellant. He referred the Court to, Pages 15-35, page 35-41, page 94 line 17-103 line 3 and also page 110 line 1 to 12 of the printed record. And the case of; Bright vs The State 2012 8 NWLR (Pt.1302) at 305.
He submitted that the foregoing has answered the question raised on whether the trial Court evaluated the evidence adduced before it and rightly relied on Exhibit B to convict the Appellant in the affirmative.
Learned counsel contended that it is trite that an Appellant who relies on improper evaluation of evidence to set aside a judgment has the onus to identify or specify the evidence improperly evaluated or not evaluated and also to show convincingly that if the complaint had been corrected, the conclusion reached would have been different and in favour of the party complaining of wrong evaluation. He referred the Court to the case of; Nkebisi Vs State (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1188) page 417 at 492.
On the Appellant’s counsel contention that the Appellant was convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of his confessional statement and opined that the Court should have sought for other evidence to support the confession. Learned Respondent’s counsel referred the Court to page 110 line 22-23 and page 111 line 1-8 of the printed record and submitted that it is evidence outside the confessional statement which in his view constitute information that support a statement made by the Appellant in exhibit B and therefore amounts to corroboration. He also the Court to the cases of;
Ezigbo Vs State (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt.1326) page 318 at 329.
Shuremo Vs The State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) (citation not completed)
He argued that assuming without conceding that there is no corroboration, it is trite that a confessional statement which is found to be direct, positive and unequivocal as to the admission of guilt by an accused person, is enough to ground conviction even without corroborative evidence. He referred the Court to the case of; Nwachukwu Vs The State (2007) 31 NSCQR 312 at 345.
On the issue of retraction of confessional statement raised by the Appellant’s counsel on page 5 line 6-7 of the Appellant’s brief, learned counsel submitted that conviction can be sustained on free and voluntary confession of an accused notwithstanding that the maker retracted the confession. He referred the Court to the case of; Solala vs the State 2005 11 NWLR (pt.937) page 460 at 488.
He maintained that that the submission of the learned Appellant’s counsel that none of the six test laid down in R Vs Sykes (supra) was passed, is misconceived and therefore go to no issue.
He insisted that the confessional statement i.e Exhibit B is quite enough to ground conviction because it satisfied all the requirements of the law. He referred the Court to pages 35-41 and 94-103 of the printed record, where all the evidences including exhibit B were carefully considered and analyzed before it was finally settled as evidence. He submitted therefore, that the trial Court has justified its preference for the exhibit B as the sole evidence relied upon in convicting the Appellant. He referred the Court to the case of; Igabele Vs The State (2006) NSCQR page 338.
Learned counsel submitted that the argument of the learned Appellant’s counsel that the confessional statement was extracted unlawfully from the Appellant is of no basis but a mere playing to the gallery, after having failed to establish the truthfulness of the allegation at the trial within trial. Therefore he cannot at this stage be heard complaining after he was given the opportunity to defend how the statement was extracted unlawfully from the Appellant. He referred the Court to page 15-35 of the printed record and He urged the Court to discountenance this argument.
In conclusion, he submitted that the finding of the trial Court was supported by credible evidence and no miscarriage of justice was occasioned as submitted by the Appellant’s counsel. He maintained therefore, even the supreme court cannot interfere. He referred the court to the cases of;
Kazeem Vs Mosaku (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.1064) page 523 at 545-546.
NNPC Vs Lutin Investment Ltd 25 NSCQR (2006) 77 at 100.
He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit and to affirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant made by the trial Court.
In criminal proceedings the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and the burden never shifts. The prosecution has the duty to prove all the ingredients of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of prove is such that if there is any doubt in relation to any of the ingredients, the doubt is to be resolved in favour of the accused person.
See; Omogodo Vs State (1981) 5 SC 5;
Amodu Vs State (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt.1177) Pg.47 at 68-69.

In order to convict for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution must prove the following;
1. That there was a robbery
2. That the accused participated in the robbery; and
3. That the accused was armed or was in company of those who were armed with offensive weapons. (underline mine)
Once the prosecution proves the above ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, the court can safely convict for armed robbery. See; Olayinka vs State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) 561.

The expression beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt, it simply means that the evidence of the prosecution against an accused person must be strong and direct, leaving no remote possibility which can be dispensed with. In other words the prosecution is required to produce positive and credible evidence which must be direct, or if circumstantial, must be of such quality or cogency that a Court could safely rely on it to decide the case. See the cases of;
Amodu Vs The State (supra) at 69.
Adetola vs The State (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.235) page 267;
Mbenu Vs State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.84) page 615.
In the instant case the Respondent in order to prove its case called 6 witnesses and tendered 3 exhibits which are the admitted confessional statement of the Appellant and the other accused persons he was charged along with.
The contention of the Appellant under this issue is that having resiled from his alleged confessional statement i.e. exhibit B, the trial Court ought not to have relied on it in convicting him especially in the absence of other independent evidence to establish the correctness or truth of the said statement.
A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. See; Saidu vs State 1982 3 SC 41.
Confession in criminal procedure, like admission in civil procedure, is the strongest evidence of guilt on the part of an accused person. It is stronger than the evidence of an eye witness because the evidence comes out from the horse’s mouth, who is the accused person. There is no better evidence and there is no need for further proof since what is admitted needs no further proof. See; Akpa Vs State 2008 14 NWLR (Pt.1106) pg.72 at 100-101. The duty of the trial court is to consider the circumstances under which it was given and to decide what weight is to be attached to it. See the cases;
Nwachuku vs State 2002 2 NWLR (Pt.751) at 366.
Iga Vs Amakiri 1976 11 S.C 1.

A free and voluntary confession of guilt, direct and positive, and if duly made and satisfactorily proved, is sufficient without any corroborative evidence so long as the court is satisfied as to the truth of the confession. In the instant case the confession of the Appellant is positive and direct. An accused person’s confession is relevant and should not be disregarded merely because he later resiles from it. What is important is the weight the trial judge will attach to such confession and retraction. See the cases of;
Ike vs The State 2010 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) page 41 at 54-55;
Itule Vs Queen (1961) 2 SCNLR 183.

The essence of corroborative evidence is to give support or strength to the assertion of the prosecution. See; Amodu vs State (supra) at 78. However, the offence of armed robbery as in the instant case is not one of such offences that require corroboration. See the cases of;
Ndidi Vs State (2007) 13 NWLR (pt.1052) pg.633;
Tanko vs State (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt.1114) pg 597 at 640.
A voluntary confession of guilt by an accused is sufficient to warrant conviction without corroborative evidence, if it is direct, positive, duly made and proved.
The court as an impartial umpire has to evaluate the evidence adduced before it, much more so in criminal matters where the liberty of the accused person is at stake, in order to arrive at a fair decision. Ike Vs State (supra) at 58.
It is elementary principle of law that the function of evaluation of evidence, is essentially that of the trial judge and when satisfactorily performed as in the instant case, this court will not interfere to re-appraise the evaluation of evidence of the Lower Court. See; Bolanle Vs State (2010) 5 NCC page 1 at 9.

An Appellant who relies on improper evaluation of evidence to set aside a judgment, has the duty to identify the evidence improperly evaluated or not evaluated and to show convincingly that if the error complained had been corrected, the conclusion reached would have been different and in his favour. See; Nkebisi vs State (2010) 5 NCC page 84 at 104. In the instant case, the Appellant have not shown that. I have carefully perused the record of appeal before this court and I am convinced that the trial court satisfactorily evaluated the evidence before it, in convicting the appellant.
In criminal cases, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is adequate in implicating an accused person, the prosecution would then have succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. See the cases of;
Tanko Vs State (supra) at 640.
Bakare Vs State (1987) 1 NWLR (pt.52) 579.
Ubani Vs State (2003) 18 NWLR (pt.851) page 224
In the instant case the evidence against the Appellant as contained in exhibit B is adequate in implicating him. A reasonable doubt which will justify an acquittal is a doubt which a reasonable man might entertain not a fanciful or imaginary doubt.
I resolved this issue in favour of the Respondent.
I find no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The judgment of Katsina state High court of justice in suit No: KTN/26/C/2003 delivered on 28/11/2006 by S. A. Mahuta J. is upheld. The conviction and sentence passed on the Appellant is hereby affirmed.

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.: I agree.

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.: I agree with the reasoning and conclusions of my brother Abdu Aboki, JCA that the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.
I too dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential orders in the lead judgment.

Appearances

E. Obeya Esq.For Appellant

AND

M. A. Kankia (CSC) and S. M. Abubakar (SC)For Respondent