Basiru Mohammed V. The State (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant in this appeal was convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court, Sokoto, Sokoto State, whereat he was arraigned on a two count charge of conspiracy and armed robbery.

The said charge reads thus :-

“That you Basiru Mohammed on or about the 7th day of March, 2006 at about 20:30hrs at Gidan Dare, along Western By-pass in Sokoto South Local Government Area, within the Sokoto Judicial Division, agreed to do an illegal act, to wit attacking and robbing one Mansur Altine of Kwanni Area and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 398 LFN, 1990.

That you Basiru Mohammed on or about the 7h day of March, 2006 at about 20:30hrs at Gidan Dare along Western Bypass in Sokoto South Local Government Area within the Sokoto Judicial Division, did commit the offence of armed robbery to wit; you attacked one Mansur Altine with a knife, cut his throat and forcefully collected his motorcycle (Honda Super Cub with Reg. No. AF 454 SKK valued at N90,000.00) from him, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 398 LFN, 1990.

The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Respondent as the prosecution in a bid to prove its case, called four prosecution witnesses and tendered three exhibits, namely; Exhibit A- Suzuki Super Cub Motorcycle with Chassis No.050/9781273. Exhibit B – Appellant’s written statement under caution in Hausa Language dated 10th March, 2006 and Exhibit Bl – English Language translation of Exhibit B.

The charge/case against the Appellant was that on 7th March, 2006, he conspired, and while armed with a knife – an offensive weapon, attacked and robbed, “one Mansur Altine” and “forcefully” snatched his motorcycle, “Honda Super Cub with Reg. No. AF 454 SKK valued at N90,000.00”. Exhibit A, was tendered and admitted in evidence through PW1 – Sgt. Ahmed Bala, Force No. 151432, Police Exhibit Keeper. PW2 who gave his name as Mansur Muhammed narrated how the Appellant attacked him, inflicted injury on his neck with a knife and stole his Honda dark green motor cycle with Reg. No. QF 454 SKK. PW3 – Cpl. Fredrick Agbu, Force No. 209572 testified regarding how he took one Mansur Altine to the hospital for treatment and also recorded the statement of the Appellant under caution. PW4 – Sgt. Ibrahim Shuaibu, Force No. 146091 gave his testimony on the roles which he played in the course of his investigation into the case against the Appellant and how he also recorded another statement under caution from the Appellant. Exhibits B and B1 were tendered through PW4.

At the close of trial, learned counsel for the parties addressed the trial court. The learned trial judge, Hon. Justice M.U. Dogon Daji, in his judgment delivered on 28th January, 2008, found the Appellant guilty on both counts as charged, convicted and sentenced him to death by hanging. The Appellant was aggrieved by this decision and hence the instant appeal to this Court, filed on 15th February, 2008 with a sole ground of appeal. The Appellant with leave of this Court, sought and obtained on 6th October, 2009 also filed an amended notice containing two additional grounds of appeal.

In compliance with requisite rules of court, briefs of arguments were duly filed and exchanged. In the Appellant’s brief, prepared by Ebenezer Obeya Esq., the sole issue proposed for determination of this appeal was, “whether the charge of conspiracy and armed robbery was proved beyond reasonable doubt.” In the Respondent’s brief, prepared by Mrs. Aisha Mohammed Dantsoho, State Counsel 1, Ministry of Justice, Sokoto, two issues were formulated as arising for determination in this appeal. They are:-

1. Whether the court erred in law in holding the charge of conspiracy as proved beyond reasonable doubt
2. Whether from totality evidence, the charge of armed robbery was proved beyond reasonable doubt, (sic)

From my end, the issues formulated by the Appellant and Respondent, more or less raised the same point – whether or not, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Howbeit, after I have given a thorough look at the complaints in Appellant’s grounds of appeal inclusive of the particulars, I am of the humble viewpoint that the gravamen of the complaints in this appeal can be encapsulated thus:-

“Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence adduced before it and rightly regarded Exhibit B1 as confessional, before finding and holding that the Respondent proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and subsequently convicting the Appellant thereon.”

Arguing the issue as reframed above, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the counts of conspiracy to commit robbery and committing armed robbery were not proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. It was recalled that the learned defence counsel submitted before the trial court that the charge of conspiracy was not proved and the prosecution conceded the point. Referring to Section 11(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act and citing Abdullahi v. The State (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115) 203, it was then submitted that the learned trial judge was wrong when he accepted, placed heavy reliance on Exhibit B1 and found the Appellant guilty as charged. According to the learned Appellant’s counsel, this is moreso, when the evidence of PW2 – Mansur Muhammed, the alleged victim and only eye witness to the robbery is grossly at variance with Exhibit B1 and testimony of the Appellant as DW1. It was exemplified that, while PW2 maintained that he was attacked and robbed by one attacker, Exhibit B1 stated that there were two attackers. Furthermore, that in Exhibit B1, the involvement of the so – called co – conspirator was very physical at the point of the alleged robbery and as such there was no way, the alleged victim would have forgotten such an involvement. Again, that if the evidence of the victim contradicts the facts of the robbery itself as stated in Exhibit B1, then less reliance should have been placed on it by the trial court as it relates to the planning of the alleged robbery. It was added that the doubt raised ought to have been resolved in favour of the Appellant.

On the second count of armed robbery, reference was made by the learned counsel for the Appellant to the ingredients of the offence as restated in Abdullahi v. The State, (supra) with the submission that nothing in the gamut of evidence adduced by the prosecution, established any of the ingredients, talk less of the same, having been done beyond reasonable doubt. It was argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant in another submission, that there was no credible evidence outside the confessional statement which linked the Appellant to the offences charged and as such, Exhibit B1 failed the tests laid down in Isah v. The State (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1049) 582/591, in assessing the quality of a confessional statement, be it retracted or otherwise.

We were invited in the given circumstances and facts of this appeal, to re-evaluate the evidence and urged to hold that the Respondent herein failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offences alleged in Charge No. SS/50C/06 were committed by the Appellant. We were then urged to allow the appeal and quash the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant by the trial court.