Akinlo Ifedayo V The State (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JSC

The Appellant and three others were arraigned before the High Court of Ondo State, Akure, on a Three-Count Charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery and receiving stolen property. It was only first Accused that was charged with receiving “a Multilink Nokia cell phone, property stolen from Dr. Obanoyen Ademola by armed robbers”, including Appellant, who was the third Accused.

He pleaded not guilty to the charge against him and to prove its case, the Prosecution called three witnesses, and tendered nine Exhibits. The Accused Persons testified in their defence, and they did not call any other witnesses.

The Prosecution’s case is that the Appellant along with second and fourth Accused Persons and others at large, robbed the said Dr. Obanoyen on 12/11/2011 at his house in Owo, Ondo State, and carted away laptops, handsets and money while armed with guns and offensive weapons.

In his Statement to the Police, Exhibit A5, the Appellant confessed that they were armed with guns and robbed the said Dr. Obanoyen, who was PW3, of the aforesaid items. However, in his testimony as DW3, the Appellant denied the allegation against him, and said he only knew about a fight between his landlord’s son and two boys of his co-tenant.

The learned trial Judge, O.O. Akeredolu, J., delivered Judgment on 20/3/2013, wherein he observed as follows –

The oral evidence of the 3rd (Appellant) and 4th Accused is a far cry from their Statement to the Police. They did not lead any evidence to justify Inconsistency In the written and oral evidence. They did not call any evidence to buttress their oral evidence. In their extra-judicial Statement each named the other as members of the same robbery gang. Both 3rd and 4th Accused acknowledged that the items they stole from PW3 include phones and laptops. 3rd Accused stated in Exhibit A5 “Waidi left with phones and laptops. 4th Accused said he knew Adijat whom he described as the sister of Waidi. Adijat is the 1st Accused. One of the handsets of PW3 was recovered from her. Both the 3rd and 4th Accused Persons confessed that the wall of the house of PW3 was broken for them to gain entry into his house. PW3 said the robbers hit his wall before they gained access. When Police came and PW3 had the courage to come out he said he discovered that the robbers broke his wall and entered through the living room. One of the handsets was found on Adijat the first accused.

The learned trial Judge thereafter concluded as follows –

The 3rd and 4th Accused had opportunity to commit the crime. The contents of Exhibits A5 and A6 are consistent with the oral evidence of the Prosecution. In summary, the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Accused conspired to commit armed robbery and that they committed armed robbery contrary to Section I (2) (a) and Section 6 (b) of the Robbery and Firearms Act (Special Provisions) Act Cap 311, Vol. 14, laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. I find the 2nd – 4th Accused guilty as charged.

2. I hereby sentence you Akinlo ifedayo to death by hanging by the neck until you be dead or by firing squad as may be prescribed by the Governor.

Dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal with a Notice of Appeal that was later amended. The Amended Notice of Appeal contained three Grounds of Appeal and he distilled two Issues for Determination in his Brief of Argument; that is –

1. Whether the identification evidence in this case properly linked the Appellant to the two-count Charge of conspiracy and armed robbery preferred against him.
2. Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the two-count Charge of conspiracy and armed robbery preferred against him and two others.

The Court of Appeal adopted his two Issues as formulated, and held as follows on Issue 1 touching on identification –

The Appellant identified himself in his confessional statement Exhibit A5, therefore, there is no need for further Identification parade as the Appellant by himself identified himself thereby removing any doubt of his involvement in the commission of the offence – – Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, no issue as to the identification of the Appellant was raised to warrant an identification parade. Put differently, an identification parade is not a sine qua non for a conviction.

On Issue 2, whether the Prosecution proved its case, it held:

The evidence of PW1 is to the effect that there was an armed robbery at the house of PW3. PW1 said he saw the 2nd Accused at the scene of the crime with the aid of moonlight. In support, PW2 said he investigated the case. He also investigated the Diamond Bank robbery that the 2nd – 4th Accused confessed they were also responsible for armed robbery at the house of PW3 among other robberies. The foregoing pieces of evidence as led by PW3, PW1 and PW2 are corroborative enough of the confession in Exhibit A5. The Appellant’s Statements admitted in evidence are dearly confessional and stated in comprehensive detail how the robbery was planned and executed, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 corroborated the confessional Statements as to how the robbery was carried out. I have no doubt that the confession is true. I confirm the finding of the trial Court that Exhibit A5 is a confession by the Appellant that he and other persons had a common purpose, which is to rob PW3 by violence. The Prosecution has, therefore, proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robbery against the 2nd – 4th Accused Persons and I so hold.