“On the first argument by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it is not correct to say that to constitute Armed Robbery, that the victim of the robbery must sustain wounds or be wounded by an accused person.
The position of the law is made very clear by Akeju J.C.A. in the case of: MOHAMMED VS. STATE (2015) LPELR-25916 (CA) PP. 20-21 where the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal held on the meaning of Armed Robbery that:
“Armed Robbery from the Provision of Section 2 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act simply means to rob while in possession of any Firearm or any offensive weapon or being in company with any person so armed. What then is “Robbery” and what constitutes “arms”? As regards the word “Arms” there is a clear subdivision of that term under Section 11 of the Act into “Firearms” and “Offensive Weapons” “firearms” include the following -cannon, gun, rifle, carbine, machine gun, cap gun, flint gun, revolver, pistol explosive or ammunition or other Firearms whether whole or detached pieces” while “offensive weapons” refer to “any article (apart from a Firearm) made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it for such use by him and it includes an air gun, air pistol, bow and arrow, spear, cutlass, matchet, dagger, cudgel or any piece of wood metal glass or stone capable of being used as an offensive weapon.”
Secondly, none of the cases that define and spelt out the ingredients of the offence of Armed Robbery either from the Apex Court in Nigeria or the Courts below it ever defined the offence of Armed Robbery to include wounding or even inflicting personal violence on the victim. Rather, the three known ingredients of the offence of armed robbery are:-
1) That there was a robbery.
2) That it was an armed robbery.
3) That the accused was the robber or one of the robbers. And, that all the three ingredients must be altogether proved for the offence to be said to be proved.
See: ADEKOYA VS. STATE (2012) MSCJ VOL. II P. 20-21 PER PETER-ODILI J.S.C. (PP. 52-53); NWOKOCHA VS. A.G, OF IMO STATE (2016) LPELR- 40077 (SC); AMINU VS. STATE (1990) 6 NWLR (PT. 155) 125; MOHAMMED VS. STATE (2015) LPELR-25916 (Supra) and AFOLAYAN VS. STATE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT. 1220) 584 at 610.”Per OWOADE, J.C.A. (Pp. 25-27, Paras. E-F); JUBRIL v. FRN (2018) LPELR-43993(CA)