John s/o George & Anor. v. R. Crim. App. 827-D-70; September, 1971; Onyiuke, J.

John s/o George & Anor. v. R. Crim. App. 827-D-70; September, 1971; Onyiuke, J.

The appellants were convicted on a charge of robbery with violence c/s 285 and 286 of the Penal Code. The facts were that a dwelling house-cum-shop was burgled on the material night. A hue and cry was raised and a report received that two of the gang were to be found in a neighboring village. A game scout armed with a rifle and a party of villagers set out to look for the burglars. They came upon the two appellants, one armed with a shot gun, a pistol and a torch; the other was armed with a pistol. The game scout halted them and was interrogating them when the 1^st appellant grabbed him and both appellants overpowered him, took away his rifle and escaped. They were later arrested in another village. On arrest they led the arresting party to the spot where they had hidden the rifle which was recovered. The appellants defence was that they were innocent and were mistakenly arrested.

            Held: (1) “The issues before the learned Magistrate were whether it was the appellants who robbed PW. 1 (of his rifle) as alleged and whether they had been sufficiently identified.” (2) (After quoting section 171(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code) “The judgment neither contained the point or points for determination nor the reasons for the decision. Where there is conflicting evidence or where the evidence tendered by the prosecution is denied by the defence and the defence gives a different version, it is the duty of the trial court to assess and evaluate the evidence and give some indications why it accepted one piece of evidence in preference to another. It is my view that the learned magistrate’s judgment did not comply with s. 171(1) of the Criminal Procedure code.” (3) “I have now to consider the effect of this non-compliance. Section 346 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no omission or irregularity in the judgment is fatal unless it occasions a failure of justice …….. There were no discrepancies in the prosecution case to weaken it or to raise doubts as to the appellants’ guilt. Further the defence in this case has been destroyed by the discovery, on the disclosures of the appellants, of he rifle from the place where thy hid it. The failure to give reasons in the judgment id not in the circumstances of the case invalidates the decision as it did not lead to a failure of justice. I dismiss the appeal against conviction.”