Oluche One v. The State (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Justice Gombe State delivered by Hon. Justice Halima S. Mohammed on the 29th November, 2021 in charge No: GM/60C/2019.

Dissatisfied with the said decision, the appellant appealed to this court vide a notice of appeal dated and filed on the 25th day of February, 2022.

Brief statement of facts

The appellant was arraigned along with one other on a three counts charges for the offences of conspiracy, armed robbery and culpable homicide punishable with death under sections 1(2) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act and 221 of the Penal Code respectively.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the three-count charge and the prosecution proceeded to call six (6) witnesses and tendered exhibits. The appellant testified for himself and called one other witness, parties thereafter addressed the court.

At the end of the trial and after hearing respective final addresses, the trial court find that the prosecution has established the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convict and sentenced the appellant for the three offences charged. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant appealed to this court.

Issues for determination

The appellant filed the appellant’s brief of argument dated and filed 23rd March, 2023. In the brief which was filed through appellant’s counsel Mr. Ayuba Rabiu, Esq, the following issues were formulated for the determination of this appeal:

1. Whether the honourable trial court was right in relying solely on exhibit B, B1 and B2 in convicting the appellant. (Distilled from ground one)
2. Whether there was any circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. (Distilled from ground two)
3. Whether the prosecution called all vital witnesses in prove of its case. (Distilled from ground three)
4. Whether much weight could be placed on the testimony of witnesses not cautioned as mandated by the Evidence Act. (Distilled from ground four)

On the first issue, learned counsel to the appellant Mr. Ayuba Rabiu, Esq, submitted that the trial court in convicting the appellant placed heavy reliance on exhibit B, B1 and B2 even though these extra-judicial statements contains alterations which PW4 admitted to tampering same as contained in page 84 line 19 – 25. He submitted that this violates the law and also cited the case of Olori & Ors v. Sparkling Breweries Ltd & Ors. (2017) LPELR-43325, where the court held that:

It is basic law where a document is altered or changed, it no longer enjoys any legal life, the said document becomes lifeless and moribund.

Learned counsel to the appellant stated that the alterations were done without the endorsement of the appellant to indicate consent as evidenced in page 84 wherein PW4 stated:

we dont endorse tempered statements, it only happens in the bank. Counsel to the appellant argued that since the alterations were not endorsed or countersigned to indicate the consent of the appellant same cannot be used by the court. The case of Mr. Pam v. Jang (2017) LPELR-47227 (CA), was referred to.

It was submitted for the appellant that PW4 stated in open court that: