Demo Oseni Vs. The State (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C. 

The appellant was charged along with one Abubakar Umaru Sadiq with the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery before the High Court of Justice of Kwara State, llorin Judicial Division. The counts of conspiracy and armed robbery were laid under s.97 of the Penal Code and s.l (2)(a) and (b) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provision) Act Cap. R.ll Laws of the Federation 2004, respectively.

In the course of the trial, the Criminal Justice Committee of Kwara State released the 1st accused person Abubakar Umaru Sadiq on bail based on ground of ill-health. Subsequently, he was reported dead and his name struck out of the charge. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge discharged and acquitted the 2nd accused, the appellant herein, of the offence of conspiracy. He was however convicted of the offence of armed robbery and sentenced to death by hanging.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal llorin. The lower Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial High Court.

Appellant has appealed to this Court on four grounds which are hereunder reproduced, shorn of their particulars:

‘GROUND ONE: The Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that the respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

GROUND TWO: The Court of Appeal misdirected itself when it held that the confessional statement was sufficiently corroborated.

GROUND THREE: The Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law when it held that the argument that the appellant speaks and understands a different language from that of the prosecution witnesses cannot avail the appellant the benefit of doubt in view of the fact that the witnesses were not cross-examined on how they heard the confession of the appellant.

GROUND FOUR: The Court of Appeal misdirected itself when it held that the learned trial Judge was right in convicting the appellant of the offence of armed robbery while discharging him on the offence of conspiracy.’

In compliance with the rules, learned Counsel for the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. From the four grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant formulated the following two issues for determination:

‘ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

(a) Whether in view of the evidence adduced at the trial Court the Court of Appeal was right to have affirmed the decision of the trial Court that the charge of armed robbery was proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Related to Grounds 1 &2).

(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that Exhibit 5 was rightly acted upon by the learned trial Judge.’ (Related to Grounds 3 & 4).

Learned Counsel for the respondent adopted the two issues presented by the appellant.