Asekere V. State (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.

The case of the Respondent is that PW1, Titilayo Adeyemo, knew the Appellant through a customer named Sylvester, for about 5 years before the incident because they used to buy goods from her. On 2/9/2011 at about 7 pm to 7:40pm, when there was electricity light, the Appellant with his gang of armed men attacked Mrs. Titilayo Adeyemo (PW1), her daughter and others in the shop of PW1, when he came to buy cigarette. When she bent down to pick the cigarette, she heard a gunshot fired by the Appellant. The Appellant later snatched a bag from her containing a Bible, wrist watch and the sum of N180,000.00, which was by her side. The incident was subsequently reported to the Anti-Robbery Squad. She was asked if she knew any of the armed robbers and she mentioned the name of the Appellant, who was thereafter arrested.

​The Appellant’s case however was that he knew PW1 through her daughter (PW2), who used to sell alcoholic drinks at Adeolu Street, Ayedun quarters, Akure, where he used to visit PW2 as a lover. He alleged that he quarreled with PW2, who did not give him attention when he visited her that day because she was talking with another man for about 30 minutes. In another breath, he gave an alibi that he was with his mother in Eleyowo village, where they were tending to their farms on the day of the incident and was impossible for him to conspire with anybody.

The trial Court found the Appellant guilty for conspiracy and armed robbery. The lower Court quashed the conviction on conspiracy but affirmed the conviction for armed robbery, hence this appeal.

ISSUES:

The Appellant’s two issues adopted by the Respondent read thus:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court to the effect that the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 at the trial Court sufficiently demolished the Appellant’s defence of alibi given the varied inconsistencies in the testimonies of both PW1 and PW2.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court to the effect that the Respondent has proved the charge of armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

I shall condense the two issues into one to be considered thus:

Whether by the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3, the Respondent has proved the charge of armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

ARGUMENTS:

The submission of the Appellant’s learned Counsel is that the core evidence of PW1 and PW2 are replete with contradictions and inconsistencies that cannot be relied upon to convict the Appellant. He relied on ADEKUNLE OLUWAFEMI ALO V. STATE (2015) LPELR-24404. Also, that the failure to investigate the timeous and corroborated alibi of the Appellant was fatal to the case of the Respondent. He placed reliance on ADEYEMI V. STATE (2018) ALL FWLR (PT.929) AT 305-306, STATE V. ANI (2009) 16 NWLR (PT.1168) 443. The learned Counsel further submitted that the confessional statement of the Appellant having being made in a language other than English and not signed by him ought not to be relied on to convict the Appellant. Besides, that the six tests for determining the veracity of a confessional statement was not followed by the lower Court in affirming the conviction of the Appellant. He urged this Court to resolve the two issues in favour of the Appellant and to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the lower Court.

The Respondent’s learned Counsel submitted on the other hand that the defence of alibi is always demolished where the prosecution adduces evidence to fix the accused person to the scene of the crime. He quoted in support SHEHU V. STATE (2010) 2-3 SC (PT.1) 158, IKUEPENIKAN V. STATE (2011) 1 NWLR (PT. 1229) 499.

He maintained that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 pinned the Appellant to the scene of the crime thereby rendering futile his alibi. He asserted that the direct evidence of PW1 and PW2 on the identification of the Appellant as one of the persons that robbed them was direct, positive and credible to prove ingredients of armed robbery against the Appellant. He prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal.

RESOLUTION:

The ingredients of the offence of armed robbery are that: (i) That there was a robbery or a series of robberies; (ii) That each robbery was an armed robbery; (iii) That appellant was one of those who took part in the robberies. The elements above have to co-exist and established beyond reasonable doubt. See AWOSIKA VS THE STATE (2010) 9 NWLR (PT. 1198) 40 AT 71-73.