In ordinary parlance, the word acquittal from the Latin word verbum equivocum, may be used to express either the verdict of the jury [where jury trials obtain] or the judgment of a Court. Nafiu Rabiu v Kano State (1980) LPELR -2936 (SC), citing J. B. Saunders, Words and phrases Legally Defined (Second edition); 102 -103; D-A. In effect, it is a term employed to describe a Court order which sets an accused person free from the charge of an offence, Chief of Army Staff and Ors v Iyen(2005) LPELR -3165 (SC) 37; D- F, However, it must be emphasized that an acquittal of an accused person in a verdict can only be returned on the consideration of the case on the merits, Nigerian Air Force v Kamaldeen (2007) 2 SC 131.
Again to be said is that it is of no moment that the empty shells of bullet or bullet marks were not seen. Also that even if the gun used for the offence was not tendered before the trial Court would not exonerate the accused persons in the light of the cogent eyewitness evidence adduced. See Fatai Olayinka v The State (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 373) 163; Abiodun v The State (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 700) 1257 at 1269; Babarinde v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 717) 600 at 632; Alor v State (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) 762; Dibie v State (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.893) 257.
The law is trite that in order to secure a conviction for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution is only duty bound to prove;
(a) That there was an armed robbery.
(b) That the accused was armed in company with any person so armed; and
(c) that the accused while with arm or arms or in company with person so armed, participated in the robbery.
Once the prosecution proves the aforementioned elements of the offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt, its failure to tender the arms or offensive weapon can not lead to his acquittal because ofthe possibility of the accused person doing away with the arms or weapon after the commission of the crime in order to exculpate himself from detection or arrest. See Olayinka v State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 561; Okosi vs AG Bendel State (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 100) 642.
I must emphasise here that there is no principle of law that insists that the prosecution must tender weapons used in the alleged robbery in order to prove the guilt of an accused person. The tendering of the weapons used depends on the circumstance of the case, for instance, where the prosecution stated that any weapon used in the robbery was recovered. See Olayinka's case (supra). This therefore knocks the bottom of the fact relied upon by the Court below, that PW3 did not tender any empty shell or gun at the prosecution of the case. See also Abiodun vs The State (2013) All FWLR (pt. 700) 1257 at 1269 Para E.
The law is trite that a convict cannot hang on mere irregularity of Procedure (if any) to gain acquittal unless he can show that such irregularities in procedure led to substantial miscarriage of justice. The Court below held this much
There is always strong possibility that circumstantial evidence may be fabricated, so before a trial Court relies on it to convict an accused person it must be narrowly examined. The Court must be satisfied that the evidence is direct and must lead unequivocally and indisputably to the guilt of the appellant.
Circumstantial evidence must be cogent, complete and unequivocal. Where circumstantial evidence is deficient the accused person may be entitled to an acquittal. See
Usman v. State (2014) 5 SC (pt. i) p. 61.
Udor v. State (2014) 5-6 SC (pt. ii) p. 177.
Click the link below to read the full Judgment:
Anyasador v. State LGC(9/2/2018)I
The prosecution also has the onus to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt through credible and reliable evidence in proof of the case against the accused person. The burden therefore, does not shift. This is borne out from the fact that our Constitutions had entrenched adequate provisions to the effect that an accused person is always presumed innocent until he was otherwise proved to have committed that offence. Therefore, once the prosecution succeeded in proving the elements or ingredients of the offence or offences, the burden thereupon, shifts to the accused person to prove that he was not responsible in committing the offence(s) charged. If he succeeds in doing so, the trial Court then must acquit the accused person promptly.
Click the link below to read the full Judgment:
Anyasador v. State LGC(9/2/2018)E
When validly raised with sufficient particulars of the whereabouts of the Defendant, alibi obligates or makes it incumbent on the prosecution to investigate it with the view of either validating it or debunking it: BALOGUN v. A.G OGUN STATE (supra) alibi, if successfully pleaded and established, is an absolute or complete defence that negatives both the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence. It does entitle the Defendant to acquittal and order of discharge: UKWUNNENYI v. THE STATE (supra). The defence of alibi is not established by mere waving it to the trial Court.
It is not sacrosanct Either. This Court in DAGAYYA v. THE STATE (2006) NWLR (Pt.980) 637; (2006) ALL F.W.L.R. (Pt.308) 1212, cited by the Appellant’s counsel had stated the law on alibi clearly thus: the defence of alibi crumbles the moment the prosecution gives superior evidence fixing the Defendant not only to the scene of the crime, but also to his commission of the offence. ” Per EKO, JSC (Pp. 7-9, para- D) underlined for emphasis. PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.