Be The First To Know By
LawPavilion
![image](/2020/10/lawreport.jpg")
![image](/2021/04/CaseManager.jpg")
CASE TITLE:
SIRAJO MUHAMMED DONDOS v. THE STATE (2021)
LPELR-53380(SC)
![image](/2021/01/payne-alex.jpg")
JUDGMENT DATE:
29TH
JANUARY, 2021
JUSTICES:
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, JSC
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, JSC
EJEMBI EKO, JSC
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC
PRACTICE AREA:
Criminal Law and Procedure – Offence of Armed Robbery
FACTS:
The appellant, in this case, was the 2nd accused person at the
Katsina State High Court along with two other accused persons who
were charged and arraigned on a two-count charge of armed robbery
committed on the 30th day of January 2002 and in April 2002.
In proof of his case at the trial Court, the prosecution called
a number of witnesses in the main trial and during the trial within
trial. The recorded statement of the Appellant was confirmed by the
Appellant as the statement he made to the Police when he was
cross-examined. Though the Appellant later denied the said
confessional statement, after a comprehensive trial within trial to
determine the admissibility of the said confessional statement, the
trial court said it found no evidence to contradict the
prosecution’s testimony that the confessional statement was
obtained voluntarily, consequently, same was admitted in
evidence.
The accused/appellant was convicted for the offence of Armed
Robbery under Section 1 (2) (a) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms
(Special Provision) Act Cap 398 LFN 1990, by the trial Court. The
Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court
appealed to the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division on the ground that
the decision of the High Court was unreasonable, unwarranted and
cannot be supported having regards to the evidence adduced at the
trial. The appellant further contended at the Court of Appeal that
the two-count charge of armed robbery was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal
and dismissed the same, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on the lone issue:
Whether having regarded the available evidence and the entire
circumstance surrounding the matter, the lower Court was right to
affirm the decision of the trial Court in this matter.
The case of the Appellant, in a nutshell, was that he had no
link with the charge; was not found with any form of weapon; was
not arrested at the scene of the crime and the available evidence
is just the alleged confessional statement of a doubtful origin
since he was tortured and shot on the leg before he signed the said
statement. That the appeal should be allowed.
On the part of the Respondent, it was argued that the totality
of the evidence placed by the prosecution before the trial Court
was enough to secure the conviction of the appellant for the
offence of armed robbery. That the concurrent findings of the two
Courts below were well-grounded for which the Supreme Court should
not interfere to disturb the findings and conclusions thereof.
DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the Supreme Court held that there was merit in the
appeal and accordingly allowed it. Consequent upon this, the
Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which
affirmed the decision, conviction and sentence of the trial
Court.
RATIOS:
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF ARMED
ROBBERY: Ingredients required to be proved by the
prosecution to establish the offence of armed robbery; ways of
proving the offence of armed robbery
“In a case of armed robbery such as the one under discourse, it
is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the essential elements of
the offence which are as follows: –
- That there was a robbery or series of robberies;
- That each robbery was an armed robbery i.e., stealing plus
violence with a weapon or arms;
- That the accused/appellant was one of those who took part in
the armed robbery.
I refer to Eke v State (2011) 1-2 SC (part II) 219; Ugboji v
State (2018) 10 NWLR (pt. 1627) 346; Orisa v State (2018) 11 NWLR
(pt. 1631) 453 (SC); The State v Odunayo Ajayi (2016) 14 NWLR (pt.
1532) 216. In proving or establishing the necessary ingredients
above stated in a charge or armed robbery just as in any other
criminal matter, the prosecution can achieve the same by the
deployment of any of the following methods, viz:
- Direct and credible evidence; or
- Circumstantial evidence, or
- The confessional statement of the accused person.
See Babatunde v State (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) P.341.” Per
PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – CONVICTION:
Whether conviction must be based on proof of offence beyond
reasonable doubt
“The Court of law enjoined by the Evidence Act to sustain
conviction of an accused person of an alleged offence only upon
proof beyond reasonable doubt must by law, to sustain conviction of
an accused person for a criminal offence act only on empirical
evidence and not on mere intuition or hunches. I agree with
Georgewill, J.C.A., that there can be no conviction for a criminal
offence on Court’s perception of morality alone without legal
evidence. See UGOCHUKWU v. FRN (2016) LPELR – 40785 (CA).” Per
EKO, J.S.C.
- EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Effect
of an inducement, threat, promise or torture on a confessional
statement; duty of the court to ascertain the truthfulness or
otherwise of a confessional statement
“The decision of the trial Court which was anchored on Exhibit
B, the confessional statement was affirmed by the Court below in
circumstances which left some questions unanswered. This is because
there arose the issue of the statement having been obtained by
torture including a gun shot on the leg and threats on the
appellant which induced him to sign the Exhibit B as his. Those
facts were elicited during the proceedings at the trial within
trial. The situation therefore brings to mind the fact that a
confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of
the confessional has been caused by inducement, threat, promise or
torture having reference to the charge against the accused person
proceeding from a person in authority as the case in hand thereby
raising the issue if the admission of the said confessional
statement was not improper and having been admitted ought to be
expunged. See Inusa Saidu v State (1982) 2 SC 26 at 36.
Again, to be said is that the truth of Exhibit B was not
examined by both the trial Court and the lower Court and the
evidence elicited during the mini trial was enough to render the
said exhibit unreliable and the situation in this case become more
dire with the sole reliance on the said doubtful confession to
support the conviction of the appellant. The point is all the more
crucial as there is corroborative evidence from DW5 and appellant
that the appellant had wounds and blood all over him while with the
police at the time Exhibit B was obtained from him and this
critical piece of evidence was not challenged or controverted by
the police at the trial thus providing a curious scenario as to why
the Court of trial believed and relied on it. This runs counter to
the principle that evidence not challenged is taken as admitted by
the opposing party. See Akinmoju v State (2000) 4 SC (pt. I) 64;
Alarape v State (2001) 5 NWLR (pt. 205) 79; Okoebor v Police
Council (2003) 12 NELR (pt. 834) 444 at 472; Dawa v State (1980)
8-11 SC 147.
It needs be reiterated that the law still remains as it is to
the effect that in ascertaining the truthfulness or otherwise of a
confessional statement, the Court is enjoined to seek any other
evidence of circumstances which make it possible if the confession
is true and in this instance that principle was not applied by
either of the two Courts below and so leaves me without option than
to hold Exhibit B, an unreliable piece of evidence that cannot on
its own sustain a conviction. See Shurumo v State (2010) 5 NWLR
(pt.1218) 65; Oseni v State (2012) 5 NWLR (pt.41) 513 at 537;
Balogun v A.G. Federation (1994) 5 NWLR (pt. 345)442.” Per
PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
- EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Effect
of an inducement, threat or promise on a confessional statement;
Conditions to be satisfied for an inducement, threat or promise to
make a confessional statement irrelevant and inadmissible
“It is settled law that for an inducement, threat or promise to
make a confessional statement irrelevant and therefore
inadmissible, two conditions must be present (i) it must have
reference to the charge against the defendant; and (ii) the
defendant should believe that by making the statement, he would
gain advantage and avoid evil even if temporarily. A confessional
statement becomes involuntary, if the statement could not normally
have been made but for the “inducement, threat or promise”
emanating from a person in authority. This was revealed by the
statement of the Appellant that he was induced and threatened by
the Police into signing Exhibit B. A statement of inducement by a
person in authority was held inadmissible in HASKE V. QUEEN (1961)
LPELR-25081(SC).” Per ABBA AJI, J.S.C.
Be The First To Know By
LawPavilion
CASE TITLE:
SIRAJO MUHAMMED DONDOS v. THE STATE (2021)
LPELR-53380(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE:
29TH
JANUARY, 2021
JUSTICES:
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, JSC
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, JSC
EJEMBI EKO, JSC
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC
PRACTICE AREA:
Criminal Law and Procedure – Offence of Armed Robbery
FACTS:
The appellant, in this case, was the 2nd accused person at the
Katsina State High Court along with two other accused persons who
were charged and arraigned on a two-count charge of armed robbery
committed on the 30th day of January 2002 and in April 2002.
In proof of his case at the trial Court, the prosecution called
a number of witnesses in the main trial and during the trial within
trial. The recorded statement of the Appellant was confirmed by the
Appellant as the statement he made to the Police when he was
cross-examined. Though the Appellant later denied the said
confessional statement, after a comprehensive trial within trial to
determine the admissibility of the said confessional statement, the
trial court said it found no evidence to contradict the
prosecution’s testimony that the confessional statement was
obtained voluntarily, consequently, same was admitted in
evidence.
The accused/appellant was convicted for the offence of Armed
Robbery under Section 1 (2) (a) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms
(Special Provision) Act Cap 398 LFN 1990, by the trial Court. The
Appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court
appealed to the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division on the ground that
the decision of the High Court was unreasonable, unwarranted and
cannot be supported having regards to the evidence adduced at the
trial. The appellant further contended at the Court of Appeal that
the two-count charge of armed robbery was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal
and dismissed the same, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on the lone issue:
Whether having regarded the available evidence and the entire
circumstance surrounding the matter, the lower Court was right to
affirm the decision of the trial Court in this matter.
The case of the Appellant, in a nutshell, was that he had no
link with the charge; was not found with any form of weapon; was
not arrested at the scene of the crime and the available evidence
is just the alleged confessional statement of a doubtful origin
since he was tortured and shot on the leg before he signed the said
statement. That the appeal should be allowed.
On the part of the Respondent, it was argued that the totality
of the evidence placed by the prosecution before the trial Court
was enough to secure the conviction of the appellant for the
offence of armed robbery. That the concurrent findings of the two
Courts below were well-grounded for which the Supreme Court should
not interfere to disturb the findings and conclusions thereof.
DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the Supreme Court held that there was merit in the
appeal and accordingly allowed it. Consequent upon this, the
Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which
affirmed the decision, conviction and sentence of the trial
Court.
RATIOS:
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF ARMED
ROBBERY: Ingredients required to be proved by the
prosecution to establish the offence of armed robbery; ways of
proving the offence of armed robbery
“In a case of armed robbery such as the one under discourse, it
is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the essential elements of
the offence which are as follows: –
- That there was a robbery or series of robberies;
- That each robbery was an armed robbery i.e., stealing plus
violence with a weapon or arms;
- That the accused/appellant was one of those who took part in
the armed robbery.
I refer to Eke v State (2011) 1-2 SC (part II) 219; Ugboji v
State (2018) 10 NWLR (pt. 1627) 346; Orisa v State (2018) 11 NWLR
(pt. 1631) 453 (SC); The State v Odunayo Ajayi (2016) 14 NWLR (pt.
1532) 216. In proving or establishing the necessary ingredients
above stated in a charge or armed robbery just as in any other
criminal matter, the prosecution can achieve the same by the
deployment of any of the following methods, viz:
- Direct and credible evidence; or
- Circumstantial evidence, or
- The confessional statement of the accused person.
See Babatunde v State (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) P.341.” Per
PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – CONVICTION:
Whether conviction must be based on proof of offence beyond
reasonable doubt
“The Court of law enjoined by the Evidence Act to sustain
conviction of an accused person of an alleged offence only upon
proof beyond reasonable doubt must by law, to sustain conviction of
an accused person for a criminal offence act only on empirical
evidence and not on mere intuition or hunches. I agree with
Georgewill, J.C.A., that there can be no conviction for a criminal
offence on Court’s perception of morality alone without legal
evidence. See UGOCHUKWU v. FRN (2016) LPELR – 40785 (CA).” Per
EKO, J.S.C.
- EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Effect
of an inducement, threat, promise or torture on a confessional
statement; duty of the court to ascertain the truthfulness or
otherwise of a confessional statement
“The decision of the trial Court which was anchored on Exhibit
B, the confessional statement was affirmed by the Court below in
circumstances which left some questions unanswered. This is because
there arose the issue of the statement having been obtained by
torture including a gun shot on the leg and threats on the
appellant which induced him to sign the Exhibit B as his. Those
facts were elicited during the proceedings at the trial within
trial. The situation therefore brings to mind the fact that a
confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of
the confessional has been caused by inducement, threat, promise or
torture having reference to the charge against the accused person
proceeding from a person in authority as the case in hand thereby
raising the issue if the admission of the said confessional
statement was not improper and having been admitted ought to be
expunged. See Inusa Saidu v State (1982) 2 SC 26 at 36.
Again, to be said is that the truth of Exhibit B was not
examined by both the trial Court and the lower Court and the
evidence elicited during the mini trial was enough to render the
said exhibit unreliable and the situation in this case become more
dire with the sole reliance on the said doubtful confession to
support the conviction of the appellant. The point is all the more
crucial as there is corroborative evidence from DW5 and appellant
that the appellant had wounds and blood all over him while with the
police at the time Exhibit B was obtained from him and this
critical piece of evidence was not challenged or controverted by
the police at the trial thus providing a curious scenario as to why
the Court of trial believed and relied on it. This runs counter to
the principle that evidence not challenged is taken as admitted by
the opposing party. See Akinmoju v State (2000) 4 SC (pt. I) 64;
Alarape v State (2001) 5 NWLR (pt. 205) 79; Okoebor v Police
Council (2003) 12 NELR (pt. 834) 444 at 472; Dawa v State (1980)
8-11 SC 147.
It needs be reiterated that the law still remains as it is to
the effect that in ascertaining the truthfulness or otherwise of a
confessional statement, the Court is enjoined to seek any other
evidence of circumstances which make it possible if the confession
is true and in this instance that principle was not applied by
either of the two Courts below and so leaves me without option than
to hold Exhibit B, an unreliable piece of evidence that cannot on
its own sustain a conviction. See Shurumo v State (2010) 5 NWLR
(pt.1218) 65; Oseni v State (2012) 5 NWLR (pt.41) 513 at 537;
Balogun v A.G. Federation (1994) 5 NWLR (pt. 345)442.” Per
PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
- EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Effect
of an inducement, threat or promise on a confessional statement;
Conditions to be satisfied for an inducement, threat or promise to
make a confessional statement irrelevant and inadmissible
“It is settled law that for an inducement, threat or promise to
make a confessional statement irrelevant and therefore
inadmissible, two conditions must be present (i) it must have
reference to the charge against the defendant; and (ii) the
defendant should believe that by making the statement, he would
gain advantage and avoid evil even if temporarily. A confessional
statement becomes involuntary, if the statement could not normally
have been made but for the “inducement, threat or promise”
emanating from a person in authority. This was revealed by the
statement of the Appellant that he was induced and threatened by
the Police into signing Exhibit B. A statement of inducement by a
person in authority was held inadmissible in HASKE V. QUEEN (1961)
LPELR-25081(SC).” Per ABBA AJI, J.S.C.