BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • YUNUSA v STATE
  • 920
  • 2017-07-07
  • CA/IL/C.54A/2016
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

YUNUSA v STATE

ABDULRAHEEM ADEMOLA YUNUSA
V
THE STATE
COURT OF APPEAL
(ILORIN DIVISION)


M.A. OWOADE JCA (Presided and Read the Lead Judgment)
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA JCA
BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO JCA

CA/IL/C.54A/2016
FRIDAY, 7 JULY 2017

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Alibi - Defence of - When will not avail an accused
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Quality of evidence required for
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Discrepancy and/or inconsistency in prosecution’s case capable of vitiating
court’s decision - Nature of
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Identification parade - When unnecessary
EVIDENCE - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Quality of evidence required for
EVIDENCE - Discrepancy and/or inconsistency in prosecution’s case capable of vitiating court’s decision - Nature of
EVIDENCE - Identification parade - When unnecessary

Issues:
1. Whether considering the material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, the trial court was right to convict the appellant.
2. Whether proper identification parade was conducted to ascertain the identity of the appellant.
3. Whether the respondent has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts:
The appellant was arrested and arraigned at the Kwara State High Court on a two count charge of conspiracy to commit armed
robbery and armed robbery. He was alleged to have, in conjuction with another person at large, robbed one Alhaji Shehu Dan-Imam
and his family at his house at gun point, where he dispossessed them of valuables and a Mercedes Benz SUV. He was arrested at
Peace Hotel, Ilorin based on a tip off by his victim’s daughter.
The appellant on his part, raised the defence of alibi.
The trial court at the close of trial found the appellant guilty of the offence of armed robbery, but discharged and acquitted him on the charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal contending that the prosectution did not prove the offence he was changed with beyond reasonable doubt.

Part 920