TUNDE AGBOOLA v. THE STATE
(2016)LCN/8482(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 14th day of April, 2016
CA/AK/197CA/2013
RATIO
CRIMINAL LAW: CAN A FREE AND VOLUNTARY CONFESSION LEAD TO A CONVICTION
In this respect, it is trite law that a free and voluntary confession of guilt by an accused person, if it is direct and positive, duly made and satisfactorily proved, is sufficient to warrant a conviction, even if there is a corroborative evidence. A conviction based on such a confession will not be quashed on appeal merely because it is entirely on the evidence of confession by the Appellant provided that the Court is satisfied with the fact and the circumstance in which the confession was made.
Edamine V. State (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 464) 1; Nwaeze V. State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 428) 1; Ogoala V. State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 8 NWLR (Pt.259) 255; Onyejekwe V. State (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.230) 444. PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
TUNDE AGBOOLA – Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE – Respondent(s)
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Ondo State, Ore Judicial Division delivered on 26th April, 2013 by Hon. Justice O. O. Akeredolu.
The Appellant and two other accused persons were arraigned on 2 counts charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to Section 6 (b) and 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act cap. R11 Vol. 14 Laws of Federation 2004.
The particulars of the offence are that Appellant and the two other accused persons on or about 31st May, 2005 along Ajue Road via Ore conspired to commit armed robbery and whilst armed with guns and other dangerous weapons robbed Saliu Boye and Showemimo Olaniran of money and personal effects.
The Appellant and the other accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called 3 witnesses and tendered Exhibits. The Appellant and each of the other accused persons testified in defence.
On 26/4/2013, the learned trial Judge delivered his judgment and held at page 82 of the record of appeal that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant and the two other accused persons conspired to commit armed robbery and that they committed armed robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) and Section 6 (b) of the Robbery and Fire Arms Act (Special Provisions) Act cap R. 11, Vol. 14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The learned trial Judge accordingly convicted the Appellant and the two other accused persons.
Dissatisfied with his conviction, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing seven (7) grounds of appeal into this Court on 7/6/2013.
Appellant’s brief of argument dated 20/3/2014 and filed on 21/3/2014 was deemed filed on 16/4/2015
Respondent’s brief of argument is dated 15/6/2015 and filed on the same day.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant nominated a sole issue for determination.
“Whether the learned trial Judge was right when his Lordship convicted and sentenced the Appellant based on the purported confessional statements, when there was no cogent, convincing, credible and/or prima facie evidence, oral or documentary outside the confessional statements to establish the guilt of the Appellant for the offences Conspiracy and Armed Robbery beyond reasonable doubt. More so, when the purported statements are not true, positive and direct.”
Learned Counsel for the Respondent also formulated a sole issue for determination, to wit.
“Whether or not from the totality of evidence before it, the trial Court rightly held that the prosecution proved the case of conspiracy and armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.”
On the sole issue, Appellant’s Counsel reminded us that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.
He referred to the cases of Elemi Godwin Addo V. The State (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 566) 585; Abdullahi V. State (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 492) 1047; Bello Shirumo V. State (2011) All FWLR (Pt.568) 864.
He submitted that the Respondent failed to prove their case with cogent and convincing evidence to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
He referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, PW1, PW2 and pW3, argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not fix the Appellant to the scene of crime and submitted that the learned trial Judge based the Appellant’s conviction and sentence on confessional statements which are not positive and direct.
Counsel referred to the cases of Alabi V. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 307) 511; Bello V. The State (2007) NWLR (Pt.1043) 564; Chukwuka Ogudo v. The State (2011) LPELR – 860 (SC) as having established the ingredients of the offence of Armed Robbery.
He submitted that from the Record of Appeal, no evidence at all and/or no cogent evidence was adduced to establish conspiracy and no strong circumstantial evidence that could prove conspiracy.
He referred to the case of EME ORJI V. The State (2008) Vol. 6 M.J.S.C. Pg. 169 and Section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011.
Appellant’s Counsel also referred to the provision of Section 29 (4) of the Evidence Act and submitted that even though the 1st accused mentioned the Appellant in his extra judicial statement, such only binds the 1st accused and not the Appellant who at any rate was not present when the 1st accused person made his statement.
He submitted that the purported confessional statement of the Appellant cannot be the basis of his conviction unless it is free, voluntary, positive and proved to be true. Also, that a confessional statement ought not to be acted upon without testing its truth or veracity.
He referred to the cases of Abasi V. The State (1992) LPELR – 20 (SC) 18, (1992) NWLR (Pt. 260) 383; Alarape V. State (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 705) 79, (2001) LPELR – SC 87/2000 at 23 – 24.
He submitted that the trial Court did not test the truth of the purported confessional statement of the Appellant as laid down in plethora of Apex Court. He referred to the cases of Semiu Afolabi V. State (2013) LPELR 207 00 (SC) Appeal No. SC/300/2010 delivered on 7th June 2013; CPL Jona Dawa V. State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 236 – where the six-way test for testing the veracity of a confessional statement was lay down.
He argued that the mere fact the accused person confesses will not obviate the need for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and any doubt in the prosecution case will be resolved in favour of the accused person. This, he said is in line with the presumption of innocence entrenched in the Constitution and the burden of proof stipulated in the Evidence Act.
On this, Counsel referred to the case of Adeniyi Adekola V. The State (2012) LPELR 7815 SC.
He submitted that PW3 is a police officer and his evidence which appears to connect the Appellant to the offence will not be sufficient to convict the Appellant. He (PW1) said the 1st Accused person confessed that they were four (4) in number that perpetrated the offence and he took them to effect the arrest of the Appellant and the 3rd accused person. That PW3 stated further when they got to the station, the Appellant confessed to the crime.
Appellant’s Counsel referred to the testimony of PW3 under cross examination at page 30 of the Record, when he said thus:-
“I said I recorded the statement of the 2nd accused person. He was arrested on 31st May 2005. He made the statement on 2nd June 2005…”
Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the piece of evidence that the Appellant was arrested on 31st May 2004 contradicts in material particular the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who testified that only the 1st accused was arrested on 31st May, 2005 at the scene of crime. It also contradicts his own testimony that he followed the 1st accused to arrest the Appellant on 1st of June 2005.
He submitted that the trial Court ought to disregard the testimony of the PW3 and the purported confessional statements of the Appellant, because in the face of the contradictions, the witness lacks credibility and ought not to be believed and no probative value should be accorded his evidence.
He argued that if the evidence of PW3 is discountenanced, there would be nothing left of the prosecution’s case against the Appellant.
Appellant’s Counsel again referred to the evidence of PW3 at pages 18, 19, 38 and 44 of the Records. That at first at pages 18 and 19, the witness said:
“I remember 1st day of June 2005 … A case of Armed Robbery was transferred from Fanibi Police Station Akure and was referred to me for discreet investigation. The case was transferred with the 1st Accused person … Along with one single barred (sic) cut to small size and 2 life cartridges and Nokia handset ….”
The single barred (sic) gun and the 2 life cartridges were registered with the Exhibit keeper.”
That at page 38 and 44, the same PW3 witnessed as follows:
“… On 2/6/05, the 1st accused was transferred from Fanibi Police Station with Exhibits’ one barred (sic) gun cut to size with 7 life cartridges …”
Counsel submitted that to further buttress that evidence of PW3 is not reliable, he gave evidence on page 30 of the Record that the 2nd Accused was arrested on the 31st May 2005 and obtained his statement on the 2nd June 2005. No explanation was given for the delay since PW3 stated in evidence that:
“… Having seen the 1st accused person with the police, he now opened up and told the police that they are 4 in number …”
In another breath, said Counsel, at page 18 of the Record, PW3 gave evidence that 1st Accused was arrested on the 1st day of June 2005 and made his confessional statement on that same day, mentioning the Appellant’s name which led to the arrest of the Appellant.
The above, according to Counsel means the Appellant was arrested before the 1st Accused person mentioned his name in his confessional statement on the 1st June 2005 since PW3 said in his evidence that the Appellant was arrested on the 30th May, 2005.
He submitted that the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt can never be met with the quality and character of the evidence led by the prosecution’s witnesses especially in a capital offence case, where the life of the Appellant is at stake. In other words, said Counsel, where there are substantial contradictions on material issues like the instant case, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or witness, the accused will be discharged and acquitted on the premises that it cannot be said that case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
He referred to the cases of Akisile V. The State (1972) 5 SC 322, 1972 C5 SC (reprint) 209; Ngwo Kalu V. The State (1988) 10 – 11 SC 19 (1900) 4 NWLR (Pt. 90) 503; Ejigbadero V. The State (1978) 9 – 10 SC 81; Ibrahim V. The State (1991) 5 SC 171 (1991) NWLR (Pt. 186) 399.
Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge wrongly admitted Exhibit P3 after conducting trial within trial by wrong evaluation of the evidence of the Appellant.
He submitted that to demonstrate the error, at page 35 of the Record of Appeal, the trial Judge evaluated the evidence of PW1 and DW1.
That there was no place in the evidence of DW1 that he said he was “taken to ‘Sadiku’ upon his arrival at SARS -“,” Rather DW1 said in his evidence, that:
“… I was taken to SARS and at SARS I was taken to ‘Sadiku’…”
He submitted that the learned trial Court did not advert her mind to the fact that at page 9 of the Record of Appeal, it is on record that Appellant signed his purported confessional statement on the 2/6/2005 and taken before a superior officer for endorsement on the 7/6/05 but the superior officer signed the purported confessional statement after endorsement on the 2/6/05.
He argued that there was a foul play between the PW3 and the superior officer.
He urged us to resolve the sole issue in favour of the Appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy by referring to the cases of Omotola and Ors V. The State (2009) 8 ACLR 29, Shodiya V. The State (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 230) 457; Erim V. The State (1994) 6 SCNJ 104 at 116 -117.
He submitted that the best evidence of conspiracy is usually obtained from one of the conspirators or from inferences. And, that once conspiracy is proved to exist, evidence admissible against one conspirator is also admissible against the other.
He referred to the cases of Patrick Njovens & Ors V. The State (1973) NWLR 76 at 95, The Queen V. Anthony Enahoro (1965) NMLR 265.
Flowing from the above, Respondent’s Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution adduced cogent evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court rightly held that the charge of conspiracy was made out against the Appellant from the facts adduced as enumerated below:
i. That on the 31st May 2004, at about 11:30p.m along Lagos/Ore Road particularly after Ajue Village
PW1 and PW2 were robbed by a group of armed robbers who were armed with gun and cutlasses.
ii. That PW2 Sowemimo Olaniran identified the Appellant as well as the 1st and 3rd accused persons as the persons who attacked them on the said date.
iii. That PW1 and PW2 identified the accused as an armed member of the gang who was arrested at
the scene of the crime and taken to the police station. iv. That the 1st accused confessed to the police admitting the offence and the fact that they were four in number, he further led the police to the house of the Appellant who was arrested as a member of the gang.
v. That the Appellant admitted to the offence both at his house and in his confessional statement which he made at the police station.
vi. That the Appellant’s confessional statement was admitted after a trial within trial was conducted as Exhibit P3.
vii. That the 1st accused and the Appellant jointly led the police to the house of the 3rd accused who was arrested as the 3rd member of the gang.
viii. The facts contained in the statement of the Appellant showed same to be true and in tandem with facts and other evidence available before the trial Court.
The story of 1st accused about Indian Hemp was not believed by the Lower Court because the 1st accused, other accused and Appellant, after being taken to Fanibi Police Station, were not taken to NDLEA but instead they were taken to special Anti-Robbery Section (SARS)
x. 1st accused and prosecution witnesses agree that it was OPC that arrested 1st accused.
xi. That the 3rd accused also confessed to the alleged crime in confirmation of the Appellant’s confession.
Respondent’s Counsel further referred to the provisions of Section 30 and Section 8 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 and concluded that consequent upon the description of the nature of circumstantial evidence utilized by the trial Court in sustaining the charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, the trial Court rightly convicted the Appellant on the charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
On the charge of armed robbery, Respondent’s Counsel again reiterated the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery by reference to the cases of Bozin V The State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8); 465 Okosi V Attorney- General of Bendel State (1989) NWLR (Pt. 1989) NWLR (Pt. 100) 642; Aruna V. The State (1990) 9 – 10 SC 87 (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) 125 and explained that Armed Robbery is simply stealing plus violence used or threatened.
He added that the law is that the prosecution may prove the guilt of an accused person by (i) Confessional statement or (ii) Circumstantial evidence or (iii) Direct evidence – that is evidence of an eye witness. – Fatilewa V. The State (2007) 5 ACLR 630 – 631.
He submitted that in the instant appeal, there is no doubt as held by the trial Court that there is both direct, circumstantial as was confessional evidence that the Appellant committed the offence.
In support of the conviction of the Appellant, Respondent’s Counsel referred to the evidence of PW1 – PW3 and Exhibits P1 – P5.
Respondent’s Counsel referred to the cases of Abudu V State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 55; Ikemson V. State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 at 476; Dawa & Anor V. The State (1980) 8 – 11 SC 236 at 258; Nwachukwu V State (2007) All NWLR (Pt.390) 1380 at 1409 and submitted that where an extra-judicial statement has been shown to have been made voluntarily and it is positive, unequivocal and amount to admission of guilt regardless of the fact that the maker resiled therefrom or retracted it all together, this Honourable Court will affirm a conviction of an Appellant based on it as in the instant case.
The Respondent further urged us to hold that Exhibit P3 is deemed admitted in law as a formal or judicial confession and that the Appellant is estopped from asserting otherwise in his viva voce evidence in line with Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the Authority of the case of Afolalu V State (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127)160. This, he said is because the statement having been properly proved is the best guide to the truth of the part played by him, After referring to the case of Obasi V. State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 260) 383, Respondent’s Counsel submitted further that it is instructive that Exhibit P3 was only admitted after a trial within trial. That at the point of tendering Exhibit P3, Appellant did not resile from it but objected based on voluntariness. That it was at the trial that Appellant came up with the story of 1st accused being its customer who used to buy chairs from him. (Page 48 of the Record).
On the failure of the prosecution to call OPC and also tender the statement of the 1st accused made at Fanibi Police Station, Respondent’s Counsel submitted that it is not in all cases where the prosecution fails to tender an Exhibit or call a particular witness that it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He argued that where as in the instant case, sufficient evidence abound to prove the ingredients of the offence (direct evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and the confessional statements of the accused persons including Appellant admitted after trial within trial), the failure of prosecution to call a particular witness or tender an exhibit is immaterial since there is evidence in proof of every ingredient of the offence.
On this, Counsel referred to the case of Awosika V. State (2010 8 NWLR (Pt. 1198) 49 at 77.
On contradictions in the date of arrest of the Appellant, Respondent’s Counsel submitted that apart from the fact that the date of arrest is immaterial as it is not fundamental to the question whether Appellant and 1st and 3rd accused robbed on 31st May, 2005, the alleged contradiction is not clear. What is more, said Counsel, there is no dispute that
1st accused was arrested at the scene of crime and it was he who led the police (i.e PW3) to arrest Appellant and 3rd accused. Both Appellant and 3rd accused did not deny that 1st accused led police to arrest them on the date suggested.
Counsel further submitted that discrepancies in evidence relating to 2 cartridges and 7 cartridges and the complaint about 2 or 3 people being inside the 911 lorry in which PW1 and PW2 rode are clear examples of minor discrepancies that do not affect the credible evidence before the Court, nor fundamental to the question whether the Appellant and two (2) others robbed on 31st May, 2005.
Respondent’s Counsel submitted that it is too late in the day to complain that the Exhibit was wrongly admitted when there is no appeal or ground of or any issue formulated against the ruling of the lower Court on the admissibility of Exhibit P3 and indeed all other statements of all the accused persons after trial within trial.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the submission that minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is natural when there is time lag between the time of occurrence of the incident and date giving evidence. And, that the need for explanation arises only where there are material contradictions.
He referred to the cases of Omotola & Ors V. State (2009) 8 ACLR 29 and Ikemson V State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 at 476.
In the circumstance, said Counsel the alleged contradictions and inconsistencies are trifling and does not go to the root of the substance of this case. Finally, that from the evidence of identification, direct and circumstantial evidence and the confessional statement of the Appellant, the trial Court was right in convicting the Appellant upon the proof beyond reasonable doubt of the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery adduced before it by the prosecution.
RESOLUTION OF THE SOLE ISSUE.
There are two, perhaps three related complaints lodged by the Appellant in this appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. The first is that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 did not fix the Appellant to the scene of crime and that it is not enough to merely convict on the confessional statement of the Appellant, when according to the Appellant the said confessional statement was not tested with other facts to determine its veracity and when judged in the light of contradictions in between the prosecution witnesses and in the evidence of PW3 the Investigating police officer.
That the contradictions in the evidence of PW3 include the date of arrest of the Appellant and also on the number of cartridges in the single barrel gun recovered by the police from the 1st accused.
In appreciating the factual and legal basis on which this appeal is based, it is important to stress that the Appellant actually made a confession Exhibit P3 reproduced by the learned trial Judge at pages 74 – 75 of the record of appeal. Apart from the fact that the said Exhibit P3 was eventually admitted in evidence after a trial within a trial conducted by the trial Court, I have no doubt in my mind that Exhibit P3 is unequivocal as to the involvement of the Appellant along with the 1st and the 2nd accused persons in the armed robbery that took place on or about the 31st May 2005 along Ajue Road via Ore, Ondo State.
In this respect, it is trite law that a free and voluntary confession of guilt by an accused person, if it is direct and positive, duly made and satisfactorily proved, is sufficient to warrant a conviction, even if there is a corroborative evidence. A conviction based on such a confession will not be quashed on appeal merely because it is entirely on the evidence of confession by the Appellant provided that the Court is satisfied with the fact and the circumstance in which the confession was made.
Edamine V. State (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 464) 1; Nwaeze V. State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 428) 1; Ogoala V. State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 8 NWLR (Pt.259) 255; Onyejekwe V. State (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.230) 444.
In the instant case, it is equally beyond question that the facts and circumstances on record not only fix the Appellant’s to the scene of crime but also indicate the Appellant’s extra-judicial statement Exhibit P3 was corroborated, true as far as can be tested with other facts, possible and consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and proved in accordance with the principles laid down in R. V. Sykes (1913) 8 C.A.R. 233 and Ejinima V State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 627.
Some of the relevant and salient facts on record are as follows:-
(i) That PW2 Sowemimo Olaniran identified the Appellant as well as the 1st and 3rd accused persons as the persons who attacked them on the said date.
(ii) That PW1 and PW2 identified the accused as an armed member of the gang who was arrested at the scene of the crime and taken to the police station.
(iii). That the 1st accused confessed to the police admitting the offence and the fact that they were four in number, he further led the police to the house of the Appellant who was arrested as a member of the gang.
(iv) That the Appellant’s confessional statement was admitted after a trial within trial was conducted as Exhibit P3.
(v) That the 1st accused and the Appellant jointly led the police to the house of the 3rd accused who was arrested as the 3rd member of the gang.
(vi) That the Appellant admitted to the offence both at his house and in his confessional statement which he made at the police station.
(vii) The facts contained in the statement of the Appellant showed same to be true and in tandem with facts and other evidence available before the trial Court.
(viii) That the 3rd accused also confessed to the alleged crime in confirmation of the Appellant’s confession.
The learned trial Judge acknowledged and captured these facts very clearly in his judgment at page 81 of the record thus:
“The victims of the robbery are PW1 and PW2, time of the robbery is revealed by the evidence of witnesses, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 fix the 1st accused to the scene of crime.
Exhibits D1, P1, P2, P3 and P5 show that the 1st accused was arrested at the scene of crime. He confessed to the crime, he mentioned the names of the 2nd and 3rd accused. The extra-judicial statements are direct and positive. They agree with the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3. Their contents are believable. I agree with prosecuting Counsel, My Olubodun DDCL, that the 1st accused who was arrested at the scene had the opportunity to commit the crime. It is immaterial that OPC members were not called as witnesses. The oral evidence of the accused persons are inconsistent with the statement to the police. It is clear that the three accused persons made statements mentioning one another in each statement.
None of the prosecution witnesses was discredited by cross-examination. The evidence of the three prosecution witnesses that the 1st accused was arrested at the scene of crime and that he did not only mention the 2nd and 3rd accused in connection with the crime he assisted the police in their arrest remains unchallenged …”
Finally, Learned Counsel for the Appellant made heavy weather of what he termed inconsistencies and/or contradictions in the evidence of PW3, more especially as to the date of arrest of the Appellant and questioned his (PW3’s) credibility on account of the actual number of cartridges recovered from the 1st accused. I have no doubt in my mind that from the facts and in all the circumstances of the case including the direct, circumstantial and confessional evidence tendered, the aforementioned statements of PW3 are at best minor discrepancies and inconsistencies and clearly not material contradictions.
The alleged contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses especially PW3 are not material to the facts in issue before the trial Court as to create a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the evidence before it thus dispensing with the need for explanation. This is because, minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is natural when there is time lag between the time of occurrence of the incident and date giving evidence. The need for explanation arises only where there are material contradictions.
See. Omotola & Ors V State (2009) 8 ACLR 29; Ikemson V. State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455 at 476.
In the circumstance, the learned trial Court was right in convicting the Appellant of the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery, the prosecution having proved the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
The sole issue in this appeal is resolved against the Appellant.
The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
The judgment, conviction and sentence of the Appellant by O.O. Akeredolu J. on 26/4/2013 in Charge No. HOR/3c/2011 is hereby affirmed.
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I agree.
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in advance in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Mojeed Adekunle Owoade, JCA.
He has exhaustively dealt with the sole issue for determination. I have nothing more to add.
There was evidence outside the confessional statement which made it probable that the confession was true. PW2 identified the Appellant as one of those who attacked them.
For the reasons contained in the lead judgment, I too dismiss the appeal for want of merit.
I affirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the lower Court.
Appearances
Chief R. O. Balogun with him,
I.T. Balogun For Appellant
AND
Taiwo Olubodun (D.D.L.L. Ondo State Ministry of Justice) with him, M. M. Bulus and
H. Ibrahim. For Respondent
