NWABUEZE & ORS. V. THE STATE

• Pages: 389-402

NWABUEZE & ORS. V. THE STATE



389

5



NWABUEZE & ORS. V. THE STATE

NWABUEZE & ORS.

V

10

THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

15



OPUTA,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

CRIAG,



J.S.C.

8th July, 1987

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 57/1987

Criminal Law and Procedure - Robbery contra S. 1(2)(a), Robbery and Fire-arms (Special

Provisions) Act, 1970, Into State - Defences -Alibi - How established - Evidential burden

of proof - Trials - Convicting on conflicting evidence of witnesses, effect - What trial

courts should do when prosecution's case creates doubt.

Evidence - Burden of Proof in criminal cases - Section 135, Evidence Act - Prosecution's

onus - Conflicting evidence of witnesses extra judicial statement and oral evidence in

court - Effect - Alibi - The evidential burden of proof - When an alibi can be properly

raised.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether it is safe to convict on the conflicting evidence of witnesses in a criminal

trial.

2.

Whether a conviction can be based on a previous statement of a witness which

35



is inconsistent with the oral evidence of the same witness in court.

3.

What should a trial court do, where, in a case before it, the prosecution's case

leaves room for doubt as to the guilt of the person charged with an offence.

4.

When can a defence of alibi be said to have been properly and adequately raised

by an accused person in court.

40



5. Whether the court can make a finding on an extra- judicial statement of a witness

not tendered in court as evidence.

FACTS:

The appellants were convicted as charged for robbery, contrary to section

1(2)(a), Robbery and Fire-arms (Special Provisions) Act 1970, in the Imo State High

45



Court. The case made out by the prosecution and on which the appellants were

convicted was that on the morning of November 9th, 1981, the appellants, armed

with offensive weapons (a gun and a knife), robbed certain persons in the "Friends'

Hotel", Amaifeke, Orlu. One of the victims (P.W.2) made two statements to the Police

a few days after the robbery in which he had named the appellants as those who

50



had robbed the Hotel, while giving evidence in court however, he said he did not

know their names. Another victim (P.W.3) also made a statement to the Police in

which she had said she was not sure that the appellants were among those who had

robbed them at the Hotel. In court however, she denied that she made any state-

ment to the effect that she did not know any of the robbers. She claimed that the

statement attributed to her was only partially correct, adding that there was another

20

25

30