“The importance of correctly identifying the perpetrator of a crime in a criminal trial cannot be overemphasised. This is because not only his liberty, but in the case of a capital offence, his life, is at stake. In The State Vs Aibangbee (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.84) 548 @ 590 D-E, His Lordship Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC opined thus:
“ .....identification is a whole series of facts and circumstances for which a witness or witnesses associate a defendant with the commission of the offence charged. It may consist of or include evidence in form of finger prints, handwriting, palm prints, voice, identification parade, photographs or the recollection of the features of the culprit by witnesses who saw him in the act of commission which is called in question or a combination of two or more of these. Where evidence of the recollection of the witness of the features of the culprit is relied upon, it must be very cautiously regarded by the courts for fear of mistaken identification. But fear of mistaken identification could be removed by evidence such as that the indentifying witness gave full and correct description of the accused person to the police at the earliest opportunity after the commission of the offence" (Underlining mine for emphasis).
See also: Archibong Vs The State 12006) 14 NWLR (Pt.1000) 349; Eyisi Vs The State (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.691) 555”.
PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C IN GENERAL COTTON MILL LIMITED VS TRAVELLERS PALACE HOTEL LER [2018]SC. 217/2013
Summary Of Facts:
The Appellant and one other were charged before the High Court of Imo State, on a one count charge of armed robbery contrary to Section 1(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R.11 Vol. 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
The Appellant and another while armed with an iron rod and a gun, robbed one Mrs. Keke Lina Chinwe of the sum of N200, 000.00 and other valuables. They both pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The prosecution called three witnesses and tendered six exhibits while the accused persons testified in their own defence and called four witnesses. PW1 identified the Appellant by the torch light held by one of them and by the moonlight when they pulled the window louvers but she did not mention the names of the accused persons to her neighbours after the incident but to the police after she returned from the hospital. At the conclusion of the trial, both accused persons were found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.
The Appellant, who was the 2nd accused person at the trial court appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal, but same was dismissed. Still dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, the Appellant has further appealed to this court contending that the Appellant failed
to mention the names of the persons who robbed her at the earliest
opportunity.
