UCHE V. THE QUEEN

• Pages: 139-142

UCHE V. THE QUEEN



139

UCHE V. THE QUEEN

5

1.

PETER UCHE

2.

ALEXANDER NWOSU

10



V

THE QUEEN

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

15



TAYLOR,



J.S.C.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

4th June, 1964

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 25/1963

Legislation - Northern Nigeria - Penal Code, ss.296, 297, and s.298(c) - Criminal

20





Procedure Code, s.126 - Criminal Procedure (Statements to Police Officers)

Rules, 1960, Rule 9.

Criminal Law - Charge - Two separate counts charging the same robbery

-conviction on both counts -

Wain?

named in only one of the counts - the

25



better count.

Evidence - Criminal Law - Northern Nigeria - Confession to police officer - not

recorded in case diary - Oral evidence of it when admissabk under Evidence

Ordinance - Conviction bad if based merely on guilty association.

30

ISSUE:

1.

Whether oral evidence can be received of a confession made to the police

where the police did not take a written statement of it.

2.

Whether a conviction on each of two seperate counts charging the same offence

35



can be sustained.

3.

Whether a conviction can be sustained merely on guilty association.

FACTS:

The appellants were convicted both on a count of brigandage (which did not

name the victims) and on another count of armed robbery (which named one vic-

40



tim). The evidence against the two appellants was that they were identified as being

in a party of five who boarded a bus; that five unidentified persons later alighted

from the bus at a place; and that at some distance from the place a group of five

armed robbers, stopped a van and robbed the occupants. The constables who

arrested the first appellant, testified that after he was charged with robbery and

45



cautioned, he confessed it and tried to bribe them. They did not take a written

statement of that confession, but the trial Judge accepted the constables' oral evi-

dence of it. Objection was made that this was contrary to s.126 of the Criminal

Procedure Code.

HELD:

50





1. The appellants were convicted of robbery twice over - once under the label of

brigandage and again under the label of robbery - which was a mistake. The

count which named the victim was the better count.