Mohammed Sani V. The State (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On the 20th day of March, 2012, the Appellant herein was convicted by the High Court of Delta State on a charge of armed robbery and sentenced to death. This judgment is in respect of the Appeal lodged against the said decision of the lower court. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 11th June, 2012. The brief background facts, as can be gleaned from the records, disclose that on the night of 1st February, 2003, the Appellant, a herdsman, while armed with a dagger and cutlass was said to have entered the house of PW2 and robbed her of the sum of N4,350.00.

After the Appellant left, the PW2 raised an alarm leading to the eventual apprehension of the Appellant by members of the vigilante group early the next morning. The PW2 duly identified the Appellant as the person who robbed her. There is concordance in the facts as presented by the Appellant except that the Appellant claims that he went to buy food from the PW2 but that he left when the PW2 raised an alarm.

The scarified judgment is at pages 30 – 39 of the Records, while the Notice of Appeal is at pages 40 – 42 of the original Records of Appeal and pages 2 – 4 of the Supplementary Records of Appeal. The original Record of Appeal was transmitted on 4th September, 2012 while the Supplementary Record of Appeal was transmitted on 25th August, 2014.

The parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant’s brief is dated 7th September, 2012 but filed on 10th September, 2012. The Respondent’s brief is dated 7th May, 2013, filed on 9th May, 2013 and deemed as properly filed and served on 23rd May, 2013.

The Appellant formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:

“Whether on the evidence on record, the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Respondent equally distilled a sole issue for determination, namely:

“Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law when he held that the prosecution proved its case against the accused person in the one count charge beyond reasonable doubt.”

At the hearing of the appeal, Ayo Asala, Esq., learned counsel for the Appellant adopted the submissions in the Appellant’s Brief and he urged the Court to allow the appeal and discharge and acquit the Appellant.

In the same vein, O.F. Enenmo Esq., learned Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Ministry of Justice, Delta State, learned counsel for the Respondent, adopted and relied on the Respondent’s brief and he urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.

There is nothing to choose in the respective issues for determination formulated by the parties. Even though differently worded, they are six and one half dozen of the other. Their intent and purport is the same. Accordingly, it is on the basis of the issue as distilled by the Appellant that I will consider the submissions of learned counsel and resolve this matter.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

Whether, on the evidence on record, the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.