Mr. Uchenna Nwocha V. The State (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of Honourable Justice D.O Oluwayemi sitting at the High court of Lagos state, Ikeja Judicial Division delivered on the 4th day of June 2007. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

The Appellant was on the 8th of June 2006 arraigned before the lower court upon a one count charge of armed robbery contrary to section 402(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. The Appellant was alleged to have robbed one Mr. Segun Lawson (Complainant) of his car while armed with a gun on the 12th of April 2005. At the close of trial, the lower court found the Appellant guilty of armed robbery and sentenced him to death. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower court has brought this appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The Appellant’s brief was dated and filed on the 20th of May, 2008. The Respondent’s brief dated the 3rd of March, 2009 was filed on the 4th of March 2009 and deemed fifed on the same day.

Appellant’s counsel, Uche Obiorah Esq. in his brief identified three issues for determination as follows:

1. Whether the trial court was right in attaching any weight on Exhibit A and convicting the Appellant based on the said Exhibit A
2. whether the trial court was right in denying the accused person of the benefit of section 149(d) of the Evidence Act
3. whether in the light of the totality of evidence adduced before the trial court, the prosecution proved the offence of armed robbery against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

counsel to the Respondent, M.O Asumah (Mrs) adopted the Appellants issues 1 & 3 for determination, but added another dimension calling on us to interpret the provisions of section 149 (a) of the Evidence Act. I will combine the issues raised by both counsel as follows in the determination of this appeal:

1. Whether the trial court was right in attaching any weight on Exhibit A and convicting the Appellant based on the said Exhibit A
2. Whether the trial court was right in denying the accused person of the benefit of section 149(d) of the Evidence Act
3. Whether the trial court was right in relying on the doctrine of recent possession and section 149 (a) of the Evidence Act in convicting the Appellant.
4. Whether in the light of the totality of evidence adduced before the trial court, the prosecution proved the offence of armed robbery against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE ONE

Appellant’s counsel contended that the lower court erred in attaching any weight to Exhibit ‘A’, the so called confessional statement made by the Appellant at Idimu Police Station, Lagos and in convicting the Appellant on that basis.

Counsel pointed out that the appellant had at the point when the said Exhibit was sought to be tendered, taken steps to deny making the statement.

He referred to page 13 of the Record. Counsel argued that the Appellant also had in his testimony stated that the said exhibit was written by PWL, a police officer and given to the Appellant to sign in exchange for bail. Counsel then argued that it was wrong for the court to have acted on Exhibit ‘A’ without testing the truth thereof. He cited IKPO V. STATE (1995) 9 NWLR Pt. 421 Pg. 540 at 554.

Counsel further argued that the court failed to consider the requisite factors which it should have considered in determining the weight to be attached to a confessional statement. This includes whether the statement was corroborated, whether there is anything outside the statement to show that it is true, whether the accused had the opportunity of committing the crime and such other similar factors. Counsel argued that failure to consider these factors led the lower court to wrongfully attach undue weight to Exhibit A. He cited NWAEBONYI V. STATE (1994) 5 NWLR Pt. 343 Pg. 138 at 150 Counsel also pointed out that Exhibit ‘A’ was not consistent with other facts adduced in evidence before the court. He pointed out few inconsistencies between Exhibit ‘A’ and the extra judicial evidence of the complainant attached to the proof of evidence and the testimony of PW1 as to the way the robbery was carried out.

In reply, counsel to the Respondent submitted that Exhibit ‘A’ is a confessional statement made by the Appellant at Idimu Police Station which was tendered through PW1, the Investigating Police Officer (IPO). Counsel submitted that the said exhibit was tendered without any objection during the trial at the lower court and that the issue of voluntariness of the statement was not raised. Counsel submitted that Exhibit ‘A’ is an admission of fact and as such was relevant against the appellant in accordance with section 27(1) & (2) of the Evidence Act. Counsel cited OFORTETE VS. THE STATE (2000) 12 NWLR Pt 681 Pg. 415 at 435

Counsel further submitted that since Exhibit A is a positive and unequivocal statement by the Appellant that he committed the offence, the lower court was right in convicting the Appellant on the confession alone. Counsel cited MUSA YARO VS. THE STATE (2008) 3 NCC 250 at 264; OLALEKAN VS. STATE (2001) 18 NWLR Pt.746 P9.793 at 824

There is no doubt that a confessional statement by virtue of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime and is deemed relevant against the person who made it as long as it was voluntarily made.