IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
ILORIN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ILORIN
ON FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF June, 2015
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA – Justice, Court of Appeal
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA – Justice, Court of Appeal
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM – Justice, Court of Appeal
CA/IL/C.15/14.
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMED BANDE.. .. .. … .. … Appellant
AND
THE STATE…. .. .. .. … .. … Respondent
JUDGEMENT
(Delivered By CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JCA)
The appeal is against the judgement of the Kwara State High Court delivered on 25th June, 2013 by Folayan, J. in which his Lordship convicted the accused (now Appellant) for the offences of Conspiracy and armed Robbery.
The Appellant dissatisfied with the decision filed his notice of Appeal containing seventeen (17) Grounds on the 21st August, 2013.
The background facts are that the Appellant was charged and arraigned for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy and Armed Robbery Contrary to Section 1 (2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and Section 97 of the Penal Code Law.
At the trial, the prosecution called five (5) witnesses who testified as PW1 – PW5 and tendered Exhibits A – D. The Appellants statement is Exhibit D, which was admitted in evidence without objection.
At the close of trial, the lower court found the Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death by hanging… In the present case, the learned counsel submitted that the PW2 was confused when he saw the gang and could not remember anything. The PW2 need not have been the one that recovered his telephone from the appellant in the bush. This was not the case of the prosecution at the trial. The prosecution was consistent that the telephone was recovered from the appellant by the search team (including the Police) within the vicinity of the crime, in a nearby bush where he ran to. The PW3 also did not claim to have been the person that recovered the telephone from the appellant but he gave a pointer to the search team that led to the appellant’s arrest, that the culprit could not have gone far because he (PW3) put up a fight and hit him on face and he fell down. The search team shortly after, saw and arrested the appellant with some injuries and most importantly with Exhibit ‘B’ in his pocket.
In my candid view, whether the victims PW2 and PW3 were the ones that recovered the Nokia telephone or the search team it would make no difference to the contents of the charges for which the appellant was tried. They are not material contradictions or discrepancies that would create doubt that there was a robbery in which the PW2’s telephone was stolen, that the culprits were armed and that it was recovered from the appellant who was part of the gang. In conclusion, in respect of this issue, I hold that there was an armed robbery in which the appellant participated in. the first issue is resolved against the Appellant.
In respect of the second issue, the appellant had made out that he was an innocent passer-by. No doubt both parties are agreed that the appellant was arr…
