Chukwuma Augustine Ikechukwu V. The Attorney- General Of IMO State (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant was arraigned and charged with Armed Robbery at the then Imo State Armed Robbery Tribunal in 1998. The charge against the Appellant reads:

“STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

ARMED ROBBERY, contrary to section 1 (2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act – Cap. 398, Vol. XXII, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

CHUKWUMA AUGUSTINE IKECHUKWU and three others at large on the 20th day of August, 1997 at No. 11 Echina Road, Oguta in the Oguta Judicial Division while armed with a toy pistol, or wise an offensive weapon robbed CHARLES UDOM of his properties valued N250,000.00 (Two hundred and fifty thousand Naira) as well as N1,750.00 (one thousand, seven hundred and fifty Naira) belonging to the said CHARLES UDOM.”

The plea of the Appellant was taken on 1st day of September; 1999. He pleaded Not Guilty to the charge. The prosecution called four witnesses in support of its case while the Appellant testified in his own behalf and called one witness.

At the end of trial and the addresses of Learned Counsel to the parties, the Learned Trial Judge gave a considered judgment in the matter on 31st day of March, 2004 wherein he made the following findings viz:

“Accused person denied going to the scene with a gun in his testimony in court but in his statements to the police Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘D’, he stated that they had a clay gun which was in the possession ‘of one Ralph. This corroborates P.W.1’s evidence that when Accused person was searched, pieces of the gun recovered from the scene fell off from Accused person’s clothing. Prosecution witnesses 1 and 3 are agreed that Accused person and his colleagues had gun with them.

However, they are not agreed on the number of gun. Accused person in his statement stated that his colleague and partner in the robbery had a gun but a mere clay gun. I do not regard this disparity as a material contradiction. It is enough that the robbery was with arms. Whether they had one gun or two or clay gun is immaterial. As the Learned prosecuting counsel rightly observed, it is not necessary in every armed robbery case to recover the weapon of operation. It is not enough if there is evidence that the operation was with arms or dangerous weapon. See the case of

Alor v. The State (1998) 1 A.C.L.R. at 662 Ratio 11

Issue of dangerous weapon depends on the impression or effect the object has on the victim at the time of the crime. If it is a toy gun unknown to the victim but known to the Accused person, it meets the standards of offensive weapon.

Besides, P.W.1 testified that when the tumbler with which he gave accused person and his friend’s water broke, they took the pieces and threatened to cut his throat with it if he did not co-operate with them. Broken bottle also qualifies as an offensive weapon. See the case of

Ibrahim v. State (2003) 3 A.C.L.R. 479 – Ratio 11.