Chibueze Njimogu V. The State (2016)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
Appellant was the 1st accused person in an information filed at the High Court of Abia State in Charge No. HU/53C/2011, presided over by Hon. Justice A.O.K. Ogwe. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the case and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, delivered judgment on 20/11/2013, convicted the Appellant for armed robbery and sentenced him to death by hanging on the neck until he be dead. The Court discharged the 2nd Accused person ? MR. OGBONNA UME.
Appellant (with another person), was charged for the following offence:
Count 1:
?ARMED ROBBERY, contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R 11, Vol. 14, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004, as applicable in Abia State.
Particulars of Offence:
Chibueze Njimogu, Ogbonna Ume, on the 6th day of April, 2011 at No. 36 Agbama Housing Estate, in the Umuahia Judicial Division, while armed with gun and matchet, robbed the household of Mrs. James Ifeakanwa of money and many valuable properties.
Count 2:
Armed
1
Robbery, contrary to Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Fire Arms (Special Provision) Act, Cap R11, Vol. 14, laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004, as applicable in Abia State.
Particulars of Offence:
Chibueze Njimogu, Ogbonna Ume, on the 6th day of April, 2011 at Plot No. UM/382/A.O. Agbama Housing Estate, Umuahia, in the Umuahia Judicial Division, while armed with gun and matchet robbed Grace Martains of many valuable properties.? See page 3 of the Records of Appeal).
Appellant and the other accused were arraigned on 30/11/2011 and they pleaded, individually, ?Not Guilty? to the charge. (See page 43 of the Records of Appeal).
The Prosecution called 5 witnesses to prove the charge, while the Appellant defended himself on oath and called no witness. The 2nd Accused person also defended himself on oath and called no witness. Making its findings and ruling, the trial Court said:
?The story of 1st Accused as to how he rejected the job offered to him and yet when he was called to come and take the money for the job he went to take the money he did not work for, does not make sense. It only shows he was
2
lying. The noose is too tight around his neck to escape the account he was nabbed. In pronunciation, there may not be any real difference between ?Sir Woo? and ?Sawo?. He owned up to that nickname. His identity was therefore no longer in issue, it was PW4 who recognized him with his height, because she had minimum contact with him at the beginning when he assaulted her. But PW1 was unequivocal in identifying the man who robbed and raped her. I believe and accept her evidence . . . She saw 1st Accused face . . . She heard the other robber call him his nickname Sirwoo or Sawo . . . PW3 captured his face in his phone camera and she identified him again as the man. At the Police Station, she picked him again as the man. PW1 struck me as a young intelligent and articulate young lady who never prevaricated throughout her evidence, even when the cross-examination was unpleasant. She maintained her composure and candor. She struck me as a witness of the truth who expressed herself in good English grammar. I am satisfied in my conscience on the evidence and as a reasonable man that (sic) the evidence against 1st Accused. I have no doubt,
3
whatsoever, in his favour. I resolve the 2 issues . . . against the 1st Accused. I therefore find him guilty as charged and convict him of the offence of armed robbery . . .? See pages 143 ? 144 of the records of Appeal.
That is the decision Appellant appealed against, as per the notice of appeal, filed on 7/1/2014 (pages 146 to 148 of the Records of Appeal), disclosing 3 grounds of Appeal. Appellant filed his brief of argument on 20/3/14 and distilled three (3) Issues for the determination of the Appeal, namely:
1) Did the learned trial Judge make any findings of possessions of any fire arm or weapon by the Appellant warranting his conclusion that the Appellant robbed one Mrs Ifekanwa James? Ground one
2) In view of the evidence of all the prosecutions witnesses and the defence set up by the Appellant, did the prosecution prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt? (Ground 2)
3) Was the decision of the trial Judge not perverse in view of the fact that it took into account matters which ought not to have taken into account, shut his eyes to the obvious and thereby occasioned the miscarriage of justice?
The
4
Respondent filed its brief on 15/12/14, which was deemed duly done on 6/6/16. It distilled a sole Issue for the determination of the appeal ?
?Whether, considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the Appellant (1st Accused person) the Prosecution did not prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt?” Ground 2
Arguing the appeal on 6/6/2016, Counsel, as per their briefs urged us, accordingly, I shall consider the appeal on the sole Issue distilled by the Respondent?s Counsel, as the same appears more apt, and summarised the three Issues by the Appellant, together.
Appellant?s Counsel had argued that the trial Court did not make any findings on the issue of possession of gun or weapon by the Appellant at the trial; he referred us to the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and said that they did not reveal any fact of the robbers possessing arm or weapon; that even that of PW4, PW4 who mentioned possession of gun and matchet by the robbers was doubtful. He argued that the exoneration of the 2nd Accused also defeated the allegation of procession arms by the Appellant.
?
Counsel argued that the
5
prosecution did not prove the guilt of Appellant beyond reasonable doubt; that Appellant was not identified by any of the prosecution witnesses, because the PW4, in her statement to the police, at the earliest opportunity, had said she could not identify any of them, because they covered their faces; that she could only identify her things when seen (page 8 of the Records); that PW1 had claimed she saw Appellants face, when he flashed a torch light on her face. Counsel argued that it was most improbable that a person against whom a torch light was flashed on his face would see the face of a masked armed robber, the PW4 having stated that the armed men were masked!
Counsel argued again, that PW2 and PW4 never told the police that any of the accused persons was armed with a gun; that they claimed both accused had matchet in their possession. He referred us to pages 46 to 48 of the Record. He added that the investigation Report by the police at Umuahia (Zone 9) did not reveal that the PW5 (P.C. Ohanuma Chukwunonye) found that what PW4 reported to the Police was stealing; that no mention of armed robbery was reported by the complainant, though PW5 made a
6
u-turn at the trial and asserted that PW4 reported a case of armed robbery.
Counsel said there was no identification parade to identify the Appellant. He relied on the case of Olayinka Afolabi Vs State (2012)10 LRCNCC 30 at 40, Okosi Vs State (1989)1 NWLR (Pt.100) 642 to say that since the victim did not know the accused person before his first acquaintance with him during the commission of the alleged offence, an identification parade became necessary; that as long as there was evidence that the armed robbers were masked the identification parade was necessary. He relied on Fabian Nwaturuocha Vs The State (2011) 9 LRCNCC 1 at 7.
On issue 3, Counsel said the decision of the trial Court was perverse in view of the fact that the Court took into account matters it ought not to, and shut its eye to the obvious, occasioning miscarriage of justice. For instance, Counsel said that:
?(i) The trial judges conclusion that the Appellant?s alias was/is ?Sir ?Woo? or ?SAWO? whereas that name was not peculiar to the Appellant assuming the name was credited to him.?
(ii)The trial judge was assuaged to
7
believe the evidence of PW1, merely, because she sounded intelligent and articulate; never prevaricated throughout her evidence. Counsel argued that the trial Court lost sight of the fact that articulation, good grasp of simple grammar and bravery cannot constitute good grounds for finding a man guilty of offence carrying death penalty.
(iii)The trial Court shut its eyes to the failure by the prosecution to tender the negatives and photographs together with the hand set with which the PW3 used in taking the alleged picture of Appellant on the basis of which PW1 purportedly identified the Appellant.
(iv) The belief by the trial Court that PW2 identified the appellant clearly when a torch light was flashed on her face coupled with the fact that he was masked and or that he put on a fez-cap on the date of the robbery, ought to have been a factor in not believing the case of the prosecution.
(See pages 9-10 of the Appellant?s brief Paragraph 3.22(a) (b) (c) and (d).
Counsel urged us to intervene and evaluate the evidence at the trial and come to a different verdict, and discharge and acquit the Appellant. He relied on Atolagbe Vs Shoroun
8
(1985)1 NWLR (Pt.2) 360; Abisi Vs Ekwealor (1993)6 NWLR (Pt.302) 643.
He urged us to resolve the issues for the Appellant and allow the appeal.
The Respondent?s Counsel, Chief Olusola Oke, on the lone issue, argued that for the prosecution to discharge the burden placed on it by Section 38 of the Evidence Act, in criminal case, namely armed robbery, it must, by evidence prove:
(i) That there was armed robbery;
(ii) The robbers were armed and
(iii) The accused person was one of those armed robbers. He relied on Afolabi Vs State (2010)16 NWLR (Pt.1220)584 at 610; Eke Vs State (2011)3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 569 at 606.
In this appeal, counsel said, it was not in dispute that there was a robbery, which was carried out by the robbers while armed with cutlass and gun. He referred us to the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5. Counsel said the Appellant?s main complaint was that the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant, that he was one of those who took part in the robbery. Counsel argued that that argument had ignored the clear, direct and positive evidence of the prosecution witnesses, especially
9
PW1, part of which was admitted by the Appellant, that he (the Appellant) and another carried out the robbery on PW1 and PW4, while armed with cutlass and gun.
Counsel submitted that the evidence of the PW1 fixed the Appellant with the commission of the offence, when she testified to the effect that:
(i) Appellant and another forcibly entered PW1 and PW4?s residence with gun and cutlass
(ii) Appellant raped her, repeatedly during the robbery. He (Appellant) therefore spent much time with the witness/victim
(iii) Appellant used his torch light to illuminate the room, which act assisted to fix and identify the Appellant during the robbery
(iv) 2nd armed robber at the scene of the robbery called the Appellant SAWO or SIRWOO
(v) Appellant admitted in his written statement to the Police and, reluctantly on oath, that he is known and called by the name SAWO, a name PW3 used to track down Appellant at Olokoro
(vi) PW1, when shown a photograph of the Appellant taken in the course of investigation, identified him as the fair, tall person who raped and robbed her and who was called SAWO/SIRWO at the scene of the robbery.<br< p=””
</br<
10
(vii) PW1 also identified the Appellant at the Police station when she saw her (sic) among others. (He referred us to page 47 of the Records, particularly.
Counsel argued that, the evidence of PW1, when put together, coupled with corroboration provided by the Appellant himself and other witnesses, the identity of the Appellant as a participant in the armed robbery was not in any reasonable, doubt; that that was not a situation of a brief encounter between PW1 and the Appellant, as they were on and off together from 10pm to about 5pm.
Counsel argued that Appellant?s heavy weather about identification parade, in the light of the evidence on record and the findings above, goes to no issue. He argued that the identification parade, which evidence on record, shows was carried out, is not, indisputable in this case, given that the Appellant was identified by his name couple with other circumstantial evidence. He relied on Ikemson Vs State (1989)3 NWLR (Pt.455) 479; Afolabi Vs State (2010)16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584; State Vs Onyekwu (2004) All FWLR (Pt.221)1388 at 1425 to say that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond any
11
shadow of double.
On the submission that prosecution witnesses did not say the robbers were armed, Counsel relied on the evidence of PW1 on page 46 of the Records to counter that submission, as she said:
My mother and I rushed out to the corridor only to be accosted by two armed men. They had matchets, one had a gun.?
Counsel said once it is shown that SAWO, the Appellant, was one of the two armed men, it does not matter whether he was holding cutlass or gun or he was not holding any weapon at all, if one of the two did so in the prosecution of common but unlawful purpose, in this case robbery.
He relied on Ikemson Vs State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.453) 455.
One the acquittal of 2nd Accused that the same should have effect on the findings of the trial Court on the issue of the robbers being armed, Counsel submitted that the acquittal of the 2nd Accused person will not, without more, lead to the acquittal of the Appellant, where he (Appellant) had been clearly identified and linked with the commission of the offence. He relied on Okosi VS State (1989)1 NWLR (Pt.100)642; Mbanu Vs State (1988)3 NWLR (Pt.84)514. He said that
12
Afolabi vs. State (2012)10 LRCNCC 30 AT 40; Nwaturuocha vs State (2011) 9 LRCNCC 1 at 7 and Gabriel vs State (2011) 6 NCC 249 relied upon by the appellant were good Laws, but inapplicable in this appeal.
He urged us to resolve the issue against the Appellant and dismiss the appeal
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE
I had earlier indicated my intention to adopt the sole Issue donated by the Respondent to consider this appeal, as the same appears more apt to determine this appeal, having summarized the three (3) issues by the Appellant. Considering the evidence adduced at the trial, did the prosecution prove the Commission of the offence of armed robbery by the Appellant, beyond reasonable doubt, to warrant his conviction and sentence?
To prove offence of armed robbery, the prosecution has a duty to prove, by credible evidence, the following ingredients of the offence:
(1) That there was a robbery;
(2) The robbers or robber were/was armed, and
(3) The accused person was one of those who robbed or participated in the robbery.
See the case of Afolabi vs State (2010)16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584 at 610; Eke vs State (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589 at
13
606. See also Oseni vs the State (2012) LPELR ? 7833 S.C, where the Supreme Court listed the essential ingredients required to prove a case of armed robbery by the prosecution against the accused person, thus:
?(a) That there was a robbery
(b) That the robbery was an armed robbery
(c) That the accused while, with the arms, participated in the robbery.? Olayinka vs State (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt.1040) 561; Okosi vs AG. Bendel State (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.100)642; Bello vs State (2007)10 NWLR (Pt.1043)546. These three ingredients must co-exist and they must each be proved before an accused can be found guilty of the crime.? Per Adekeye JSC.
See also Chukwuka Ogudo vs The State (2011) LPELR -860 SC and Section 1 (2) (a) (b) of Robbery and Fire Arms Act Cap 318 Laws of the Federation 1990.
Appellant?s main complaint in this appeal is on his identification, as one of those who took part in the robbery. He also faintly argued that the trial Court did not make findings as to the issue of possession of gun or weapon by the Appellant at the trial.
?
The findings of the trial Court was as follows, on pages 143 ? 144 of
14
the Records!
?Let me say that there is evidence before me that two robbers armed with gun and machete robbed the household of Mrs Ifeakannwa James on 6/4/2011 and carted away the valuables she and PW1 enumerated. I believe the aspect of the evidence of PW1 and PW4 on this. The 3rd ingredient is the crucial one that will either link 1st accused or not to the offence charged? PW1 was clear in her evidence that 1st accused was the robber who repeatedly raped her, having spent many hours with her, that she could recognise him. That at the Police station, she also picked him out in identification. During the operation the two robbers had an argument and the shorter one called the 1st Accused ?Sirwoo? It was this name that her Cousin ? PW3 used to track down 1st accused at Olokoro. PW3 is an undergraduate and used modern technology to get the photograph of 1st accused in a phone handset; when he showed it to PW1, she screened (sic) that that was her assaillant? In the pronunciation, there may not be any real difference between ?Sir Woo? and ?Sawo?. He owned up to that nick name. His identity was no
15
longer in Issue, it was PW4 who recognised him with height, because she had minimum contact with him at the beginning when he assaulted her. But PW1 was unequivocal in identifying the man who robbed and raped her. I believe and accept her evidence.
____ She saw 1st accused?s face
____ She heard the other robber call him his nick name Sirwoo or Sawo
_____PW3 captured his face in his camera and she identified him again as the man
____ At the Police Station, she picked him again as the man.?
Those findings were founded on the evidence before the trial Court, as can be seen in the accounts of PW1 (Pages 46 ? 49 of the Records) and PW4 (Pages 58 to 60 of the Records).
?
The evidence of PW1, a victim of the robbery and rape, was very clear. She had to contain with the evil men, particularly the Appellant, for about 7 hours in the night/morning of the robbery and rape spree, from about 10.30 pm on 6/4/2011 to about 5 am (7/4/2011), when the evil men spent the time to satisfy their wild/wicked, carnal urge for sex and money, violating and robbing the victims of their tangible/valuables (including their (victims?)
16
whole human personalities) at gun point or violently. One can only try to imagine the trauma and wreck the four ladies were subjected to during those ungodly hours that Appellant and his partner-in-crime reigned terror on, and had their way in the bodies and properties of the ladies!
?
But it is absolutely foolish or infantile, in my opinion, for Appellant to argue about his identification and fixation to the scene of crime, in the circumstances of this case, considering the long hours and close body contacts and interactions the victims, particularly, PW1 had with the Appellant during the robbery and rapes, she said:
?We were locked up in separate rooms? he emptied my bags of money, jewelries and perfumes. He asked me to strip. He started raping me after stripping. He also beat me up as I resisted him. At a time, I started having an asthmatic attack. He accompanied me to the kitchen to take water for my ventolin drugs. He brought me back to my room and continued raping me. Later he took me to my father?s room and locked me up in his toilet saying he did not want the shorter dack (sic) one to rape me also. Two hours later, the two
17
armed men came into my father?s room to search for more things and share the money they got right there amidst an argument on who wanted to cheat the other. At that point the shorter called the taller one sirwoo after that the shorter one left the room. The tall one brought me out again, took me to another room and continued raping me. As he was raping me, he flashed his torch light on my face and when he saw I was crying, he started beating me, and cursing me, saying I should be enjoying it instead of crying. That was when I saw his face. After that he came out of the room. I heard when he made a call telling the person he called that he should come with a vehicle. The other armed man asked him where he knew the person he called from. He said timber market. They left about 5 am. I stood up from the room and went in search of my mum and other two ladies. I found them locked up in one of the bathroom in one of the rooms. I opened the door for them. We went round the house. That was when I discovered they had stolen, my said small laptop I was browsing with. They also stole 9 handsets, 3 boxes full of clothes, shoes, jewelries and money.
At about, 9
18
am that morning, my younger sister and I were taken to FMC Umuahia in the heart to heart section, my younger sister was also raped by the short dark one? we were treated with drugs
Under cross examination, PW1 said the armed men came at about 10.30pm; that the tall one raped her about 4 times; that it was when he pointed the torch light on her face that she saw his face; the robbers were speaking Igbo. She added ?I saw his face, clearly? (Page 49 of the Records).
PW3 recounted how he came to know from PW1 that they were robbed and that one of the robbers was called ?Sirwoo?, in the course of sharing their booty. He PW3 made findings in Agboma Estate about any person with that nick name and he was told of one ? a native of Umuoparanze Olokoro, notorious and bad fellow. He went there with a friend to search for him, met somebody who said he knew ?Sirwoo?. He (PW3) left his phone number and sought to connect the said Sirwoo, pretending he had a business for him, ?Sirwoo? later called him (PW3) and he (PW3) sold ?Sirwoo? a dummy, in form of some political business
19
with good pay (since it was election time). Sirwoo fell for it and they fixed appointment, and when they met and talked about the business, Sirwoo shared full interest; at that time PW3?s friend, James, took photo shots of Sirwoo and his friend, with mobile phone. PW3 took the picture in the phone to PW1, who recognised Sirwoo and screamed. The Police were connected and Sir woo (now Appellant) was tracked and arrested (See pages 54 ? 55 of the Records).
It can be seen that the nick name of the Appellant ? ?Sir woo? or ?Sawo?, which his partner-in-crime dropped at the scene of crime, at the time they quarreled over the sharing of their booty, became a valuable thread to connect him with the law, as it served as a link/lead to help the Police bring him to Court and to justice.
?
No matter the thoroughness and sophistication of criminals in their attempt to cover their track, there always exists some lead left behind by them to link them to their hiding, to bring them to justice, sooner or later, because, by divine law, what is done in the secret chambers, and covered up shall always burst into the open and be
20
proclaimed at the roof top! It is a matter of time and a little diligence by the enforcers of the law!
See the case of Chukwunyere vs. The State (2014) LPELR ? 23779 (CA), where the Accused, who was seen with a dark goggles earlier in the morning, parading the frontage of the deceased house, was held for the murder of the deceased, as his said dark goggles was picked at the scene of the murder. This Court said:
“Yes, the Accused person was not there at the time PW2 and others went to the scene but the Accused person had left part of him behind. That is what, I believe, is mysterious work of God, because each time a criminal frolics, he leaves behind a trail or trace that leads to his hideout and identity! Thus, no matter how thorough or ingenious a criminal is, or thinks he is, in his evil scheme, he cannot hide, forever, as a part of him or shadow is always left behind for any careful detective to track and trace him!
Appellant had admitted that the spectacle or dark goggle was his, but tried to be smart by saying it was taken from him when he was arrested! But under cross examination, he admitted wearing the dark glasses on the 14/1/02,
21
and that his said glasses and the one he saw at the police station were the same!”
It can also be seen that Appellant in this case had dropped his nick name behind at the scene of crime on 6/4/2011, which was used to track him!
PW4, too, testified and identified the Appellant; and she corroborated the evidence of PW1 on the robbery and the rape of PW1, and her junior sister. PW5, the IPO, confirmed the arrest of the accused persons and the identification of Appellant by PW1, as well the recovery of her laptop. He tendered the statements made by the Appellant to the Police ? Exhibits D and E which were admitted without objection.
Appellant testified as DW1 and admitted falling in to the trap planted by the PW3 and the Police for him ? He went to collect money for a plan to snatch ballot box (during election), even when he was yet to do the evil job. He admitted that Mrs. Grace Martins (PW4) identified him ? at the Police station, by pointing at him as one of those who robbed her (Page 76 of the Records). On page 77, DW1 (Appellant) said, under cross examination:
?I said in my statement in Exhibit E, that my nick name
22
is ?Sawo? and not ?Sir woo?. I was not involved in this robbery.?
In Exhibit E (on page 34 of the Records) Appellant, who said ?My nick name is Sawo? also said:
?I was arrested on 15/4/2011, because I accepted to follow some people to go and snatch ballot box in Ohafia. My involvement in that deal does not make me an armed robber
Appellant had owned up the nick name ?SAWO? (otherwise spelt ?SIRWOO? or ?SIRWO?). I agree with the trial judge that whether ?SIRWOO? or ?SAWO?, the two appear to sound alike, and since PW1only heard one of the robbers call his partner by that name, she must have written the name as it sounded to her ?SIRWO?, as shown in her statement on page 9 of the Record. I believe it is the same name that was spelt as ?SAWO? on page 34 of the Records (Exhibit E by Appellant), as it sounded to the recorder of the statement.
?
The nick name alone, would not have amounted to much, if the PW1 on seeing the picture of the Appellant, did not recognise him as one of the robbers, who also
23
raped her, repeatedly. She was said to have screamed on seeing the picture of the Appellant. And when she saw him (Appellant), again, at the Police Station, she identified him as one of the armed robbers, and her raper; PW4 also identified the Appellant at the Police station by pointing at him as one of the robbers. In Appellant?s words:
?At the office of the 2i/c at the State C.I.D. Umuahia, Mrs Grace Martins (PW4) on 3/5/11, pointed at me and said I was one of those who robbed her. The Officer asked her how she knew and she said it was same height, same stature and that I was wearing mask See page 76 of the Records
In her evidence on pages 58 and 59 of the Records, the PW4 had said:
just at the corridor, we found two armed men with matchet and gun. They shouted at us that we should not look at their faces. They had face caps. They ordered us to lie down. It was the tall one that made the orders? the tall one slapped my back with flat side of the matchet and I sustained an injury. He also slapped me on my cheek and I could not see properly for a little while ? a few minutes, because of the
24
force of the slap. He said I should tell him how much we had in the house. I told him I am a civil servant? He looked round at the pictures on the corridor and saw my husband?s picture. He said ?0h, your husband is a uniformed man, where is he? I told him he does not stay with us… He said since I did not want to cooperated, he would cut off one of my legs… He hit me with the matchet again on my thigh. He said I should go and get him the money. He insisted I should not look at his face? He took me to one of the rooms, put me in the toilet, put off the light and locked the door
The above encounter shows sufficient contact and interaction and eye contacts between the PW4 and the robbers, particularly, the tall one, who barged out the orders/threats and assault, and that with the lights on, to enable PW4 to be able to identify her assaillant. She said they wore face caps (not masks?). I think the trial Judge was therefore right when he said Appellant?s ?identity was therefore no longer in issue, it was PW4 who recognised him with his height, because she had minimum contact with him at the beginning when
25
he assaulted her.? (See page 143 of the Records.)
The trial Court also, rightly, held on page 144 of the Records:
PW1 was unequivocal in identifying the man who robbed and raped her. I believe and accept her evidence.
— She saw 1st accused?s face
—She heard the other robber call him his nick name sirwoo or sawo
—PW3 captured his face in his phone camera and she identified him again as the man.
—At the Police Station, she picked him again as the man
I think Appellant was sufficiently pinned to the scene of crime by those he robbed, assaulted and raped. The argument by his Counsel about the trial Court not making any findings about possession of fire arm or weapon, fails to register any value, as the robbers were in fact armed with matchet and gun, and Appellant even used the flat side of the matchet to slap the PW4 and injured her in order to subdue her. PW1 also said she saw the armed men with matchet and gun.
?
I do not see any merit in this appeal as I resolve the issue against the Appellant and dismiss the Appeal. I affirm the judgment of the trial Court; that Appellant
26
should pay for his gruesome crimes as stipulated by the law.
Other Citations: (2016)LCN/8941(CA)
