Uchechi Orisa V. The State (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.

The Appellant herein along with two other accused persons were arraigned before the Imo State High Court, on the 16th February, 2005 on a two counts charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery under Sections 5(b) & 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990. In order to prove its case, the prosecution called two witnesses and tendered in evidence the following documents:-

1. The previous evidence of PW1 when she testified as PW2 before another judge in the same case.
2. The extra-judicial statement of PW1 to the police.
3. The 1st statement of the Appellant who was the 1st accused at the trial Court
4. The 3rd statement of the Appellant to the police.
5. The statement of the brother of the Appellant.

These documents were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 6, and ID 1 respectively.

The Appellant called his brother, one Augustine Orisa as defence witness (DW1) and he also testified in his defence as DW2. IDI was now tendered through DWI during cross examination and same was admitted

1

and marked Exhibit 7. At the close of the parties respective cases, learned counsel for both parties addressed the Court. In a reserved and considered judgment which was delivered on the 14th day of March, 2013, Opara J. found the Appellant and his co-accused guilty of the offence of armed robbery and sentenced each of them to death by hanging.

The Appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved, he appealed to the Court of Appeal (Lower Court). In a unanimous judgment of the Lower Court, delivered on the 13th March, 2015, the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The instant appeal is against the decision of the Lower Court. The Appellant’s notice of appeal, at pages 248 -252 of the printed record of this appeal, dated 30th day of March, 2015 and filed on the 1st April, 2015 contains four grounds of appeal. Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant’s brief of argument settled by L. M. Alozie, Esq., of counsel to the Appellant was filed on the 24th July, 2015. At page 5 paragraph 3.00 of the said brief of argument, four issues were formulated for determination of this appeal in the following order:-

2

Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law when they upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial Court while the charge of conspiracy and the armed robbery were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the extra-judicial statement of the PW1 and her evidence in the previous proceedings before Hon. Justice A. U. Amaechi admitted under cross examination before the trial Court cannot in law be used to contradict the said witness.
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law when they accepted the purported evidence of oral admission of offence by the Appellant to the police and relied on same in upholding the conviction of the Appellant.
4. Whether in the light of the evidence of the prosecution and especially their statements to the police by the PW1, the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the defence of alibi raised by the Appellant which was not investigated by the police did not avail him.The Respondent’s brief of argument settled by Mrs. A. N. Eluwa, learned Solicitor-General of Imo State, who is also the Respondent’s

3

counsel was filed on the 24th October, 2016, but deemed filed on the 8th December, 2016. Learned Solicitor-General formulated three issues for determination of this appeal as follow:-

1. Whether on the totality of the evidence-adduced before the Court, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the prosecution proved the charge of armed robbery against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt warranting this conviction.
2. Whether having expunged Exhibit 5, the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were justified in holding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of guilt.
3. Whether the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal duly considered and rightly rejected the Appellant’s defence of alibi.

Appellant’s reply on point of law is dated and filed on the 5th of December, 2016, but deemed filed on the 8th December, 2016.

The issues raised by parties are similar as they deal with assessment of evidence and ascription of probative value to such evidence. I have read the record of appeal and the briefs of argument submitted by parties and I am of the firm view that the only issue calling for

4

determination of this appeal is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as to warrant, the Lower Court’s affirmation of the decision of the trial Court.

Before I venture into the consideration of the argument presented by learned counsel for the parties with a view to resolving this issue one way or the other, I wish to set out in brief the facts of this case as disclosed by the evidence before the trial Court.

On the 16th of October, 2004 at about 2.00am, three unknown persons who wore face masks to hide their identities broke into the house of Uriah Aforerinwa an elderly blind person who was in company of his wife Justina Ekeji Aforerinwa. These unknown persons demanded for money and when Uriah Aforerinwa told them that he had no money, they beat him and as a result of his shout, Mercy and Bridget, who are Aforerinwa’s daughters came to the scene. The intruders searched the room and found some money which they collected and escaped by scaling the wall of the fence. The robbery was reported to the police who were told that there was blood stain on the wall where the robbers escaped. It was suggested to the police that the

5

robbers or any of them must have sustained injury. Using this suggestion, the police directed the vigilante members in Ikeduru Local Government Area to look out for anybody with fresh wound and apprehend him. It was as a result of this directive that the members of the vigilante arrested the Appellant who was found to have fresh wound on his leg.

In arguing the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the appellant was not properly identified as one of the persons who broke into the house of Aforerinwa by PW1 who in her first statement to the police admitted that those who broke into their house were masked and could not be identified. It is learned counsel’s further submission that the Lower Court was wrong to have relied on the evidence of PW1 in Court where she identified the appellant as one of those who broke into their house on the 16th October, 2004. It is learned counsel’s submission that PW1 cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In aid, learned counsel cited the authority in Bozin vs. The State (1998) 1 ALL Criminal Report 1. According to the learned counsel, PW1 knew the Appellant before the commission of the offence,

6

she ought to have mentioned his name in her statement to the police and even in her earlier evidence in the previous proceeding and not to turn round to identify the appellant while giving evidence from the witness box in the subsequent proceeding. It is learned counsel’s contention that the purported identification of the appellant left so many gaps and raises a doubt which ought to be resolved in favour of the appellant. In aid, learned counsel cited Ikemson vs. State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.110) 455; Bassey vs. State (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt.1314) 209 at 234.

On whether the appellant at any stage admitted the offence for which he was charged, tried and convicted, learned counsel submitted that PW1 who previously testified before the Court before the matter was rolled over to be heard de novo before another judge, neither told the Court that the Appellant had admitted committing the offence when he was brought to the scene of the crime, nor did she say so in her statement to the police. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of PW1 is unworthy of credit as it contradicts her statement to police and her previous evidence before the Court. In a further

7

argument, learned counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have acted on such evidence to uphold a judgment which it would have set aside. In aid learned counsel cited Adekoya vs The State (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt.1306) 539 at 568 paras E G; Abogede vs. State (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt.448) 270; Ogoala v. State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 509.

Finally on the issue of identification, learned counsel submitted that the police investigator who handled investigation into this case was not called as a witness and that the failure of the prosecution to carry out identification parade is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

In reply to the submission of the learned appellant’s counsel, learned Solicitor-General of Imo State who appeared for the Respondent submitted that the prosecution proved its case at the trial Court beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction of the Appellant was rightly affirmed by the Lower Court. Learned Solicitor-General, further submitted that the appellant admitted the offence in the presence of PW1 when he and his co-accused were arrested and brought to the scene of the crime. According to the learned Solicitor-General, the

8

evidence of a single witness would be sufficient to ground a conviction where such evidence is credible and cogent. In aid, learned Solicitor-General cited Oguonzee vs The State (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 551) 521 (1998) 4 SC 110; Effiong vs State (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt.562) 362. Learned Solicitor-General further submitted that it is not in every criminal case that an identification parade is required and that the contradictions highlighted in the evidence of PW1 is not sufficiently material and substantial as to warrant the setting aside of the judgment of the trial Court. In aid, learned counsel cited Shurumo v. The State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1218) 65 at 81; Abogede v. The State (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt.448) 270; Nasiru v. The State (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt.589) 87.

The law is settled that if the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is on the person who asserts it, whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in the action. See Akpan v. The State (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.160) 101; Adamu vs. A.G. Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR

9

(Pt.22) 284. Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides that every person who is charged with criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. It is therefore plain that the burden of proof in criminal cases is on the prosecution who must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and a general duty to rebut the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to the accused person. This burden does not shift. See Alabi vs. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) 511 at 531 paras A C; Solola vs. The State (2005) 5 SC (Pt.1) 135; Bakare vs. The State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.53) 579.

The Appellant was charged, tried and convicted under Sections 5(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap 398 vol. xxii Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, as amended by Decree No. 62 of 1999, (Henceforth to be called the Act). Section 5 of the Act, which is now Section 6 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 2004, provides as follows:-

“6. Any Person who-

(a) Aids, counsels, abets or procures any person to commit an offence under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this

10

Act; or

(b) Conspires with any person to commit such an offence; or

(c) Supplies, procures or provides any person with firearms for use to commit an offence under Section 1 or 2 of this Act, whether or not he is present when the offence is committed or attempted to be committed, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence as a principal offender and shall be liable to be proceeded again and punished accordingly under this Act

Section 1 of the Act provides as follows:-

“1”. (i) any person who commits the offence or robbery shall upon trial and conviction under this Act, be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 21 years.

2. If –

(a) any offender mentioned in sub-section

(1) of this section is armed with any firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed; or

(b) at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person, the offender shall be liable upon conviction under this Act to be sentenced to death.”

From the provision of Section 6 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, the

11

prosecution can only succeed in proving the offence of criminal conspiracy, if it establishes the following ingredients:-

1. That there was an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means.
2. Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence that some act beside the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of agreement.
3. That each of the accused individually participated in the conspiracy.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that persons accused of conspiracy to commit criminal offence did reach an agreement to commit such offence.

In the instant case, throughout the judgment of trial Court, nothing was said about conspiracy for which the Appellant along with his co-accused were charged. After the conviction and allocutus, the learned trial judge pronounced sentence in the following words:-

“It is our law under which the convicts were arraigned that anyone charged with the offence of armed robbery if and when tried and convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction pays with his own

12

life. No option of fine. My hands are tied. The sentence of this Court upon you is that each and every one of you be hanged by the neck until you be dead. May the Good Lord have mercy on you.

The general definition assigned to the word conspiracy” in the realm of criminal law is that it is an agreement by two or more persons acting in concert or in combination to accomplish or commit an unlawful act coupled with an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement. A charge of conspiracy is a separate offence from the completed offence and it can be proved either by leading direct evidence in proof of the common criminal design or it can be proved by inference derived from the commission of the substantive offence. The evidence required in this kind of criminal offence is of such quality that irresistibly compels the Court to draw such inference as to the guilt of the accused person. The Court in pronouncing sentence, must separately do so in respect of conspiracy and the completed offence. See State v. Salawu (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1279) 580. In the instant case, having reviewed the whole proceedings of the trial Court, there was no separate,

13

categorical and direct finding by the trial Court on any of the ingredients of the offence of conspiracy. The Lower Court also failed to make statement on the charge of conspiracy. I take it therefore that the Appellant was not tried and found guilty of the offence of conspiracy as that aspect was abandoned by the trial Court. Even though the trial Court and the Lower Court did not comment on the charge of conspiracy, and the appellant did not make it an issue, it is very clear that the two Lower Courts did not avert their minds to the fact that the appellant was said to have conspired with others to commit the offence for which he was charged tried and convicted. Was that charge of conspiracy a mere cosmetics which never took place If that is so could that have an impact in the charge for robbery which ultimately led to the conviction and sentence of death by hanging imposed on the Appellant. This will be made manifest anon.

For the prosecution to prove the offence of armed robbery, it must prove the following ingredients:-

1. That there was robbery.
2. That the robbery was an armed robbery.
3. That the accused was one of those who robbed

14

or took part in the robbery. See Bello vs. State (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 564; Nwachukwu v. State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.11) 218; State vs. Salawu (supra).

There is sufficient evidence to show that on the night of 17th October 2004, there was incidence of robbery in the residence of Uriah Afoerinwa. PW1, who is the wife of Uriah Afoerinwa testified to that fact and nobody has so far contradicted that testimony. In her testimony, PW1 said:-

On 16th October, 2004, I was asleep in the night with my husband at about 12.00am. We heard a loud sound at our door and it got opened. Three people zoomed inside. We started shouting the (sic they) pointed gun on my neck saying if I shout I will die. They started searching the house and took N500,000 we were using to build house. They then left saying that they have got what they wanted.

From this piece of evidence, it is clear that the robbery that took place in the house of Uriah Ekeji Afoerinwa was an armed robbery.

The question that now seeks for answer is, whether the Appellant was one of those who took part in the armed robbery PW1 in her statement to the police which was tendered and

15

admitted at the instance of the defence counsel to contradict her evidence in Court, was admitted as Exhibit 2. In Exhibit 2, PW1 stated as follows:-

While I was sleeping, I heard a hard hit on my husbands door. The next thing I heard was when someone was asking my husband, after slapping him, where does your daughter keep money when he replied that he is blind and does not know anything about money they started beating him. The people that came inside the house were four while others were outside the house and shouting. They also searched around all the corners of my own apartment and eventually carried away one small bag, where my daughter, Bridget kept some reasonable sum of money. They (sic) people that came inside my room covered their faces and were wearing caps. So I could not identify them. I cannot say the actual amount of money that was removed from their (sic). The money belong to Bridget and she can say how much to (sic) contained in the bag.

The previous evidence of PW1 before another judge who had started hearing the case was also tendered in evidence and admitted as Exhibit 1. This exhibit basically

16

was to contradict her evidence. She testified before that learned judge as follows:-

“While we slept at about 2.am in the early hours of the morning, we heard a big bang on our door, and the door carved in; three persons jumped into the house. My husband started shouting – who are you people! As my husband was shouting, one of the three persons lifted the fallen door and placed same on my husband. The three persons took away some money from our house, which money was meant for building a house. The three persons covered their faces and I did not know them. They counted more than N500,000.

PW2, Mr Emmanuel Luke is Inspector of Police who investigated the case. Through this witness, the 1st statement of the Appellant made on undated November, 2004 (actual date not provided), the 2nd statement of the appellant made on the 4th November, 2004 and the 3rd statement made by the Appellant were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit 3, 5 and 6 respectively. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 28th of September, 2010 for cross-examination of witness and further hearing, which did not take place at all. In his judgment, the learned trial judge after

17

referring to the pieces of evidence by the two prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses concluded as follows:

So far this is the case as put-up by both sides on the divide. I have given careful consideration to this case and reviewed the law cited. Simply put, there was armed robbery in the house of Ekeji. Both sides agreed to this. DWS 1, 2, and 3 said they hear of it. PW2 one Justina Ekeji gave graphic details what transpired on that fateful night. She was in bed with her husband when they heard a big loud bang on their door and to and behold 3 men burst in, one pointed a gun at her neck (throat) threatening her not to shout at the risk of being shot if she did. She testified that she knows them well and identified them. They ransacked her room making away with the sum of N500,000.00. She said they sustained injuries in trying to scale the fence and the window. To this all we got from the accused persons was denial. The so called alibi 1st accused tried to put cannot hold water. In his extra-judicial statement, he said it was his brother mother (sic) who sent him to Aba to see his sister, in open Court he said he went to Aba to his brother

18

to collect money for his IT. However the law is that where there is direct and positive evidence of participation, the alibi even if raised will be rebutted by such evidence as in this instant case.

It was on the basis of the reasons stated above, that the trial Court was convinced that the prosecution had done a good job and proceeded to convict the Appellant and his co-accused.

At the Lower Court, Exhibit 5, the confessional statement of the Appellant was rightly in my view expunged from the record of this appeal on the ground that the learned trial judge admitted it without conducting a trial within trial, despite objection from the appellant that the so called confessional statement was obtained under threat. After expunging Exhibit 5, the Lower Court went on to consider the defence of alibi which was put forward by the appellant and came to conclusion that the defence of alibi was highly untrue and a makeup story because the stories told by the Appellant in his statements to police Exhibits 3 and 6 as well as his evidence in Court are so contradictory and therefore remained a cooked up story. The Lower Court found that the evidence

19

of PW1 and PW2 which the trial Court believed, fixed the Appellant at the scene of crime and that when the Appellant was taken on investigation to PW1’s house, the Appellant admitted in her presence that he and the other accused persons committed the armed robbery and even showed the police how they scaled the fence of the victims house. The Lower Court harped so much on the inconsistencies inherent in the Appellant’s stories about his defence of alibi, but surprisingly nothing was said about the inconsistencies in the stories of PW1, a witness for the prosecution that has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilty of the appellant.

Exhibit 1, although the testimony of PW1 in a previous proceedings before Hon. Justice Amaechi who did not complete the case, it was revived and made a relevant evidence in this case when it was tendered and admitted in evidence through PW1. I think the first place for the Lower Court to begin its consideration of the appeal before it was to look at the prosecution case in order to find out whether it had proved its case at the trial Court beyond reasonable doubt, before considering whatever defences the

20

Appellant put forward. I think the Lower Court jumped the gun when it went on to consider the defence of alibi by the appellant before it treated the prosecution’s case. The burden of proof that the Appellant committed the offence for which he was found guilty lies with the prosecution. PW1 in her extra-judicial statement to the police which was tendered and admitted in evidence as Exhibit 2, categorically stated that those who broke into their house were masked and their identities were unknown. In her evidence in Court, she suddenly turned round to identify the Appellant and his co-accused as those who broke into their house. PW1 is the only one who said that the appellant was brought to their house by the police and he admitted in her presence that he and others participated in the robbery. Even PW2, the police investigator did not volunteer such evidence. This is what PW2 said about the visit to the house of PW1;

“In the course of investigation as soon as the case was transferred from Imo State Police Command to Umuahia for continuation of investigation. I recorded the statement of complainant and her witnesses about 4. I therefore proceeded with a

21

team of policemen to the scene with the accused and the complainant. At the scene witnesses interviewed and they made statement.

Thereafter the 3 accused persons were reinterogated and they made their statement which was recorded. Also the team of policemen who investigated the matter earlier on at Owerri were interviewed and they made their statements.

PW2 further testified that he investigated the petition against the state police, interviewed members of the vigilante group that assisted the police in arresting the Appellant and his co-accused and recovered a brand new motorcycle bought by one of the accused with the stolen money. The name of one of the accused was not given. It is the police that took the appellant to the scene of the crime, and the police investigator who did so did not corroborate the evidence of PW1 that the appellant admitted the robbery and demonstrated how he scaled the fence. In her statement to the police, PW1 said:-

While I was shouting that they have killed my husband, they rushed out of the house with the bag. When I ran behind them, they fired gun shots and I ran buck to the room and they climbed

22

out through the fence.”

In her evidence before the Court, PW1 said:-

We started shouting the (sic they) pointed gun on my neck saying if I shout I will die.”

In her evidence before Justice Amaeshi, the proceeding which was tendered and admitted to contradict PW1, this witness said:-

While we slept at about 2.00am in the early hours of the morning, we heard a big bang on our door, and the door carved in, three persons jumped into the house. My husband started shouting – who ire you people! As my husband was shouting, one of the three persons lifted the fallen door and placed same on my husband. The three person took away some money from our house, which money was meant for building a house. The three persons covered their faces and I did not know them.

From the record of proceedings at the trial Court there are inconsistencies in extrajudicial statement of PW1 and her sworn testimony in Court with respect to the identification of the Appellant. There is contradiction in the previous evidence of PW1 and her evidence in the trial Court where the Appellant was found guilty. In her previous evidence, no gun was pointed

23

to her neck, but in the latter evidence the robbers pointed a gun at her neck. The law is settled that where a witness made an extra-judicial statement which is inconsistent with his sworn testimony on oath in Court and he gives no reasonable explanation for the inconsistencies, the only option available to the Court is to regard his evidence unreliable. Clearly the evidence of PW1 upon which the Lower Court so relied in finding the Appellant guilty is unreliable. An oral evidence of PW1 that the Appellant admitted the offence in her presence is not corroborated in any material particular since Exhibit 5 which could have provided some assistance had been expunged from the record.

The Lower Court found that the Appellant told lies with respect to the defence of alibi. The fact that an accused person told lies to wriggle out of trouble would show that he is a liar, but that does not change or reduce the burden of proof squarely and constitutionally placed on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

This is a criminal case in which the Appellant was sentenced to death. Therefore all the defences available to

24

him must be explored even though such defences were not canvassed on the Appellant’s behalf. The Appellant was arrested because he had fresh wound which was suspected to have been caused when he scaled the wall to escape. According to the prosecution there was blood stain on the wall. What effort did the prosecution make to relate the wound to the blood stain on the wall of the house of the husband of PW1. This is twenty first century which has brought with it advanced technological know-how. A DNA could have easily solved the question as to whether the blood stain was from the Appellant’s body. No evidence was led to ascertain whose blood stain was on the wall. To trace the blood stain to the appellant is a mere speculation which no Court can act upon. In Agip (Nig) Ltd v. Agip Petroli International (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1187) 348 at 413 paras B D, this court said:-

It is trite principle also that a Court should not decide a case on mere conjecture or speculation. Courts of Laws are Courts of facts and Laws. They decide issues on facts established before them and on laws. They must avoid speculation. See Oguonzee vs. State (1998) 5 NWLR

25

(Pt.551) 521; Ikenta Best (Nig) Ltd v. A.G. Rivers State (2008) LPELR 1476; Galadima v. The State (2012) LPELR 15530.

In the instant case, identification parade is unnecessary since the PW1 and her daughters were unable to establish acquaintance or see the faces of the robbers during the commission of the offence. However PW1 admitted in her evidence before the Court that she knew the Appellant before the robbery and that the Appellant is from Amiyi Akabo like her. In her extra-judicial statement, she stated as follows:-

“The next thing I heard was when someone was asking my husband, after slapping him where does your daughter keep money”

Since she knew the Appellant before this incidence, PW1 would have identified him by his voice and informed the police at the earliest opportunity. It was only in Court, she admitted knowing the appellant, which admission had become obsolete and added no value to the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court sitting on appeal is usually reluctant to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by Courts below. In the instant case, the decision of the High Court and the Court of Appeal have failed to meet

26

the justice required in this case. It will not be in the interest of justice to condemn the Appellant to death on contradictory evidence presented by the prosecution. In Ukwunnenyi vs State(1989) 5 NWLR (Pt.113) 137 at 156 Oputa JSC had this to say about proof beyond reasonable doubt:-

This is the policy of our law. The policy derives from the fact that human justice has its limitations. It is not given to human justice to see and know as the great eternal knows the thoughts and actions of all men. Human justice has to depend on evidence and inference. Dealing with the irrevocable issues of life and death, she has to tread cautiously, lest she sends an innocent man to an early and ignoble death. In our system, it is therefore better that nine guilty persons escape than for an innocent man to be condemned. And that is why the Court gives the benefit of any reasonable doubt to accused person.

This is a case in which I will interfere. Accordingly, the sole issue formulated by me is resolved in favour of the Appellant. Having so resolved the sole issue in favour of the Appellant, this appeal shall be and it is hereby allowed. The decision of

27

the High Court of Imo State which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division is hereby set aside.

The Appellant is acquitted and discharged accordingly.

---

SC.327/2015