Patrick Ikemson & Ors Vs The State (1989)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

On the 9th of December, 1982, one Emmanuel Abaraoha, a cashier with the National Trucks Manufacturers Ltd., Kano, was returning to the company’s factory from various banks where he collected the total sum of N10.507.00 on behalf of the company. He was sitting at the back seat of a car, of FIAT make driven by Sani Abdullahi. Emmanuel Abaraoha and Sani Abaullahi were the P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively at the trial Court.

The vehicle was negotiating a ramp just at the junction to the factory, when the first accused ordered the vehicle to stop and drew out a gun. In no time he shot at P.W.1 injuring him at the back of the shoulder. In the meantime, the P. W.2 was also attacked and shot at both thighs; the shooting could be by first appellant or by the second accused at the trial, Samuel Nwogu (alias G.O.C.) who was discharged at the Court of Appeal.

By the time Patrick Ikemson (1st appellant) accosted the P.W.1, the path of the car had been blocked with a motor cycle riden by two of the attackers, Anthony Odeh (2nd appellant) and Ikechukwu Uzochukwu (3rd appellant). The P.W.1 and P.W.2 were dragged out of the car and the robbers made away with it, leaving their motor cycle at the scene. The P.W.1 must have passed out by the time the robbers made their escape from the scene because he came round only at the hospital.

Meanwhile, a prompt report of the armed brigandage had got to the Police Post at Zaria Road and a chase was immediately set in motion. A few hundred meters away at the junction of the road leading to Maiduguri, the vehicle snatched was sited. About four persons were inside and three of them got out of the car leaving Ikechukwu Uzochukwu (3rd appellant) inside. Seeing the policemen, he also got out of the car and took to his heels. He was pursued and finally apprehended. The whole incident took place in broad daylight. As a result of the voluntary statement by this 3rd appellant, the police arrested the first appellant at his house. Later the second appellant was also arrested. The P.W.1 was sure he was shot at by the first appellant because he could vividly remember him by his complexion and beard. The 3rd appellant was arrested after he abandoned the snatched car and attempted to escape. The P.W.2 could recognise the second appellant as one of the two robbers that blocked the path of the car with a motor cycle. The four accused were found guilty at the High Court, convicted and sentenced to death. They appealed to the Court of Appeal where the 2nd accused, Samuel Nwogu (alias G.O.C.) was discharged and conviction and sentence passed on the three appellants now before us were affirmed.

The appellants raised some issues for determination based on their grounds of appeal and they could be summarised as follows:

1. Was the identification of the appellants in accordance with the law
2. Because there were contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, was the Court right in convicting the appellants on such evidence
3. Was the discharge of Samuel Nwogu (alias G.O.C.) by the Court of Appeal not sufficient ground for the discharge of the present appellants
4. Because the prosecution never called witnesses, could this Court not exercise its powers under S.26(1) Supreme Court Act

The three appellants filed identical grounds, on general ground of appeal and on the contradictions of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

I will deal first with the alleged contradictions. The onus always in a criminal offence is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and failure so to do, will automatically lead to the discharge of the accused person. Onubogu v. The State (1974) 9 S.C.1; Stephen v. The State (1986) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt.46) 918. If there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, and the contradictions go materially to the charge, doubt will be created and benefit of it must be given the accused person, in which case he will be discharged.

The question in the instant case is whether there was a robbery. If there was one, the next question is whether any of the appellants participated in the robbery. If they participated, that is enough, for it does not matter what each one did in furtherance of the commission of the crime. The mere fact of common object to commit armed robbery and manifesting at the scene of crime to execute that object in law rendered all the appellants guilty of the offence of armed robbery.

The P.W.1 was certain that it was the first appellant that ordered the car to stop and fired the gun that injured him. The P.W.2 was certain he saw the 2nd and 3rd appellants on a motor cycle used by them to obstruct his path and he was shot in the thighs by the 2nd accused person who got discharged at the trial. There was conflict in the evidence as to who fired the shots that injured the P.W.2; but there was clear evidence that the three appellants were at the scene of the crime in furtherance of their common object.

The material evidence is that they were present; it does not matter if the victims could not vividly remember the part played by each accused person. The 3rd appellant was the only one that could not get away and he was seen getting out of the vehicle snatched at the scene of the crime a few minutes after the crime and a few yards from the scene of crime.

He was also identified by the P.W.2 as one of the two persons on the motor cycle blocking the path of the car. The P.W.1 was certain it was the first appellant that fired the shot that injured him; he was also sure that the 2nd accused (discharged at the Court of Appeal), shot at the P.W.2. There is hardly any contradiction. The accused persons were convicted not for merely firing gun shots at their victims, but mainly for the offence of armed robbery.

All those who participated in the robbery are guilty whether they fired guns, or blocked the road with motor cycle or drove away from the scene of crime, the motor vehicle snatched.

The accused persons also raised alibi; that they never committed the offence they were charged with, because they were somewhere else when the offence was being committed. Once alibi is raised by an accused person, it is incumbent on the prosecution to investigate the alibi to find out if it is true the accused was not at the scene of the crime when the crime was being committed; or to rebut the alibi if it was false. Adio v. The State (1986) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.31) 714; Onafowokan v. The State (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.61) 538. It is however, not enough for the accused just to say he was not at the scene, he must give sufficient particulars as to his whereabouts for the prosecution to investigate. Yanor v. The State (1965) 1 All N.L.R. 193; Okosi v. The State (1989) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 100) 642.

It is a serious matter for a person to be charged for an offence he has not committed the more so if the person being charged was somewhere away from the scene of the crime now in issue. It is for this simple reason that an accused in such predicament should and is expected to at the earliest opportunity protest his innocence by intimating the police who are interrogating him of his whereabouts.