Salisu Isiaka V. The State (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SOTONYE DENTON -WEST, J.C.A (Delivering the leading Judgment)

The appellant was convicted for robbing Mutiyat AbdulKareem of her Nokia 3320 handset with a cudgel an offence punishable under section 1 (2) of the Robbery and firearms (special provisions) Act Cap R11 laws of the Federation of Nigeria. When the charge was read to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and the prosecution called four witnesses and three Exhibits to prove their case.

The appellant gave evidence under oath and denied the allegation against him.

The trial Judge, Hon. Justice S.D Kawu gave his judgment on 30th day of June 2010 and convicted the appellant. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed three grounds of appeal. On 27/6/2010. When the appeal was heard. Learned counsel to the appellant adopted the brief of argument dated 24/2/2011 and filed same date, he prayed this court to allow the appeal, discharge and acquit the appellant.

The respondent in the same fashion adopted his respondent brief of argument dated 21/3/2011 and filed same date and prayed that this appeal be dismissed and affirm the decision of the lower court. From these briefs which two issues were distilled thus;

(1) Whether the learned trial judge was right in not considering the defence put forward by the appellant before the appellant’s conviction and sentence and

(2) Whether from the totality of evidence proffered in this case, the prosecution’s evidence was cogent enough to warrant the conviction of the appellant.

The learned DPP in his wisdom formulated two issue thus;-

(1) Whether the learned trial judge did not give any consideration to the defence of the accused/appellant before his conviction and sentence.

(2) Whether from the totality of evidence proffered in this case, the prosecutor’s evidence were cogent enough to warrant the conviction of the appellant.

In resolution of these issues, I which to adopt the Appellant’s two issues for the determination of this appeal more so the two issues have similar interpretation.

ISSUE 1.

Whether the learned trial judge was right in not considering the defence put forward by the appellant before the appellants’ conviction and sentence.

The learned appellant counsel submitted that the learned Trial Judge ought to have considered the defence put forward by the applicant before handing down the pronouncement of conviction, he thereafter argued that the verdict of guilt can only be sustained upon evidence which established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of an accused person and that if there is the slightest doubt in the evidence so adduced as to the guilt of the suspect, that doubt must be resolved in the accused favour.