Momoh Jimoh Salau V. The State (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI. J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, delivered on 3/3/2016, which affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial Court, wherein he was convicted and sentenced to 24 years imprisonment and fine of N20,000 for the offence of mischief by fire, contained in the amended Charge dated 7/4/2011 at pages 2-3 of the record.

At the trial, the Prosecution called 6 witness and tendered several Exhibits; at the end of which a no case submission was made leading to the discharge of the Appellant on 1st and 3rd charges only and convicted on the 4th head of charge for 24 years imprisonment and fine of N20,000. On appeal to the lower Court, the Appellant lost, hence this appeal.

By a Notice of Appeal, the Appellant formulated 3 Grounds of appeal with their particulars. In arguing the appeal, the Appellant formulated an issue for the determination of the appeal thus:

Whether the Respondent proved its case against the Appellant.

The Respondent formulated an issue also for the determination of the appeal as follows:

1

Whether the concurrent finding by the trial Court and the Court below that the prosecution has proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt was perverse or not.

Having gone through the records and the evidence therein, this appeal shall be considered on the issue formulated by the learned Counsel to the Appellant.

ISSUE:

Whether the Respondent proved its case against the Appellant.

The learned Counsel to the Appellant submitted that by the presumption of the innocence of the Appellant, the burden of proving the guilt of the Appellant is on the prosecution as decided in OSUAGWU V. STATE (2013) 5 NWLR (PT.1347) AT 386. He stated that the prosecution did not prove the ingredients of the offence against the Appellant that he burnt the house of PW1 or any house at all because of the manifest contradictions in the case of the Respondent. He argued that PW1 did not show the house or move the Court to the house he alleged was burnt down. He affirmed also that identification parade was not carried out by the police. He asserted that by the decision in AGBO V. STATE (2006) NWLR (PT.977) AT 555, that the Appellant is entitled to

2

acquittal because of the material contradictions in the case of the prosecution. He concluded that the decisions of the 2 lower Courts were perverse and not supported by evidence and is calling on this Court to intervene, set aside the decisions and acquit the Appellant.