Sunday Ani & Anor V. The State (2009)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

O. OGEBE, J.S.C

The appellants were tried and convicted on a charge of armed robbery contrary to section 1(2) (a) of Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. 398 LFN 1990 in the High Court of Enugu State presided over by Nosike J.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division and the appeal was dismissed on the 10th of March, 2003. This is a further appeal to this Court.

The respondent’s case is that the appellants and 3 others robbed PW1 Chime Ugwu (hereinafter also called “the complainant”) of the sum of N300,000 with a gun and iron rod in the early hours of 29th of June, 1997. PW1 had known the appellants very well before as the 1st appellant was an apprentice under him and the second appellant frequently visited him. He said that he recognized the appellants with the aid of bush lantern.

The prosecution called 3 witnesses and tendered the statements of the appellants denying any involvement with the crime. The appellants in their statements to the Police raised a defence of alibi which was never investigated by the Police. The appellants’ case was a total denial of the offence in their evidence in court. DW1 Inspector James Eze gave evidence on their behalf.

The learned counsel for the appellants in their brief formulated 3 issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the affirmation of the conviction and sentence of the Appellants by the Court of Appeal.

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in their evaluation of the evidence with which they found that PW1 did not report to the police that “unknown thief or thieves” robbed him, which misdirection, in turn, led to a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants.
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right, in law, to affirm the convictions and sentences of the Appellants by the trial court even though their defence of alibi, raised at the earliest opportunity, was never investigated and there was no conclusive evidence fixing them at the scene of the crime”

The learned counsel for the respondent also filed a brief and formulated 3 issues for determination as follows:

“(i) Whether the trial court and the court below were right holding that the charge of armed robbery preferred against the two appellants was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii) Whether the defence of alibi availed the appellants having regards to the peculiar facts of this case.

(iii) Whether the evidential value ascribed to the evidence of the P.W. 1 (complainant) by the court below was a misdirection in law.”

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the two lower courts were wrong in convicting the appellants of the offence of robbery when the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He said that the only evidence implicating the appellants was the evidence of P.W.1 who claimed to have recognized the appellants with the use of bush lamp but in his first report to the Police he told the Police that unknown thieves broke into his house and stole his money. The Police report is exhibit “F” and the Police Officer who recorded exhibit “F” testified as D.W.1. He stated clearly that the report made to him was that unknown thief or thieves broke into the house of the complainant and robbed him of his money.

The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of D.W.1 raised reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the complainant’s identification of the appellants. The lower court was therefore wrong in convicting the appellants of the offence of robbery. He relied on the case of Bozin V. The State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.8) p.465; Abudu V The State (1985)1 NWLR (pt.1) 55; and Ebre V. The State (2001) 12 NWLR (pt.728) 617 and submitted that where a complainant failed to mention to the Police the names of suspects at the earliest opportunity, his subsequent naming of suspect should be treated with caution.

On the second issue the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower court made a wrong evaluation of the evidence and came to the wrong conclusion in affirming the judgment of the High Court. He said that the Police report in exhibit “F” showed that the complainant reported that unknown thief robbed him and the maker D.W.1 gave evidence that the complainant came back 3 days later and gave the names of the appellants as his suspects. Based on that information the Police arrested the suspects with the complainant as their guide.