For a conviction for the charge of armed robbery to creditably be sustained, the prosecution is equally required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the following ingredients: (i) That there was a robbery or series of robberies; (ii) That the robbery was armed robbery; and (iii) That the Defendant participated in the said armed robbery.
– Saulawa, JSC. Makanjuola v. State (2021)
SHARE ON
To succeed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt in a charge for armed robbery or culpable homicide punishable with death, one of the essential ingredients of both offences is proof that the accused person was one of those who participated in the armed robbery or series of robberies and in the case of culpable homicide, that it was his act that caused the death of the deceased. For armed robbery, see: Bozin Vs The State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 465; Afolabi Vs The State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 584; Smart Vs The State (2016) LPELR 40728 (SC) @ 29 D-E. For culpable homicide punishable with death, see: Musa Vs The State (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467; Aliyu Vs The State (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt.1368) 403; Afolabi Vs The State (2016) LPELR 40300 (SC) at 31-32 E-A.
— E. Eko, JSC. Lawali v State (2019) – SC.272/2017
To secure conviction for the offence of robbery against the appellant, the prosecution must prove: 6 (1) The occurrence of the robbery. (2) The participation of the appellant in the said robbery and (3) That at the material time, the robbery was being committed, the appellant was either armed with firearms or offensive weapon or that he was in company of a person who was so armed EKE V. STATE (2011) LPELR-1133 (SC) and LEGI MOHAMMED V. STATE LPELR-46420.
— M.D. Muhammad, JSC. Friday Charles v. The State of Lagos (SC.CR/503/2020, Friday March 31 2023)
In my considered view the report of stealing made by the PW.1 which was accompanied with actual violence and shooting of gun to overcome any resistance to the PW1’s handbag being stolen, snatched or retained by the assailant is consistent with armed robbery. I hold therefore that the Court below was not wrong when in its judgment particularly the portion at page 179 of the Record, it affirmed the trial Court’s finding, relying on the PW.1’s evidence, that there was a robbery.
— E. Eko, JSC. Kekong v State (2017) – SC.884/2014
In a case of armed robbery such as the one under discourse, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence which are as follows: – 1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies; 2. That each robbery was an armed robbery i.e., stealing plus violence with a weapon or arms 3. That the accused/appellant was one of those who took part in the armed robbery.
– Peter-Odili, JSC. Dondos v. State (2021) – SC.905/2014
To secure a conviction under Sec. 1(2) (b) of the Robbery & Firearms Act, the following essential ingredients must be proved by the prosecution: i) That there was indeed a robbery or series of robbery. ii) That the robbers were armed with dangerous weapons and iii) That the accused/Defendant was the robber or one of the robbers.
– H.M. Ogunwumiju, JSC. State v. Ibrahim (2021) – SC.200/2016
There are three essential ingredients to be proved by the prosecution. They are set out below: a. That there was robbery; b. That the robber or robbers were armed with offensive weapons; c. That the accused person(s) was the robber or one of the robbers.
– Ogunwumiju JCA. Okeke v. State (2016)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry