BOZIN V. THE STATE

• Pages: 1087-1101

BOZIN V. THE STATE



1087

BOZIN V. THE STATE

5

SAMUEL BOZIN



APPELLANT

V

10 THE STATE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 212/1984

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

15



ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

11th

July, 1985

20

Criminal Law and Procedure - Identity of person suspected of crime -

Identification parade - Proper way to conduct - Effect where accused is

identified by the prior su xestions and promptings of police - Accused standing

alone in place of identification witnesses identified by being asked leading

questions - Effect. - Defence of alibi - Meaning and effect of - Onus and

25



standard of defence on accused - Duty of prosecution to investigate all defences

suggesting alibi - Effect of failure to.

Evidence - Standard of proof in criminal cases - Where there is doubt in

prosecution's case - Effect - Evaluation of evidence - Duty of court - Need

30



to make actual findings and not escape in the phrase: "I believe", "I do not

believe" - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Whether discharged where no

proper findings made and where defence of alibi is neither investigated nor

rebutted.

35

ISSUES:

1.

What principles should guide the conduct of an identification parade to make

it proper in law? What is the effect of non-compliance with these principles?

2.

What is the standard of proof required from an accused person to establish an

alibi?

40



3. What is the effect of the failure of the prosecution to investigate or lead evidence

in rebuttal of such defence when raised?

4. Whether a trial judge has a duty to consider any defence put up by an accused

person

5a.What is the duty of a trial judge

where

the facts of a case appear improbable

45



when compared to the surrounding circumstances of the case?;

5b. whether the use of the words 'I believe' or 'I am satisfied' can fully resolve such

improbabilities.

6. In whose favour should doubts arising from the totality of evidence and

circumstances of a case be resolved?

50

FACTS:

The appellant was charged with armed robbery under S.1(2)(a) of the Robbery

and Firearms (Special Provisions) Decree No. 47 of 1970.