Usman Salahudeen V. The State (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivered the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kaduna State High Court in Suit KDH/KAD/19C/2011, delivered by Kurada J; on 22/5/2012, wherein the learned trial judge convicted the Appellant for offence of armed robbery and sentenced him to death by hanging, pursuant to section 1(2) (a) and (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Acts, Cap R11 LFN, 2004.

On the 3rd day of August, 2011, the Appellant (as accused person in the court below) was arraigned on a one-count charge of Armed Robbery. The amended charged, as framed by the Respondent against the Appellant, was;

“That you Usman Salahudeen (with Eric and Morphy now at large) on or about the 1st day of April 2010 at about 22.30hrs while armed with gun, attacked and robbed one Paulina Diagi (Mrs) at No. 4 Chukun Close Tirkania, Kaduna of the following items;

(1) Seven Hundred thousand Naira (N700,000.00) and;

(2) Two Nokia handsets and thereby committed on offence punishable under section 1 (2) (a) and (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, CAP R11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.”

The said amended charge was dated 27/7/2011, and signed by P. Y. Zamani Esq (Prosecutor), Ministry of Justice, Kaduna.

Appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge, which made the prosecution to call two (2) witnesses, to prove the charge. At the close of the prosecution’s case, Appellant testified in his defence as DW1, and called two others as witnesses. The trial court believed the evidence of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death, hence this appeal.

Appellant filed his Notice of appeal on 31/7/2012 and disclosed five (5) grounds of appeal, as per pages 43-46 of the Records of Appeal, as follows;-

GROUND ONE

The learned trial judge erred in law in that he convicted and sentenced the appellant to death on the basis of Exhibit 1, the alledged confessional statement of the appellant, despite the evidence of the PW1 that the appellant was tortured by the police to confess to the commission of the offence.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

i. The trial judge did not properly and adequately test the truth of the said exhibit 1 by examining them critically in the light of the evidence of the PW1.

ii. It is not the evidence of the PW1 that the accused person was tortured at Police Operation Yaki Office,