The Appellant along with two others were arraigned for armed
robbery. It was further alleged that immediately before such stealing, the
accused persons party fired a gun shot in order to obtain the stolen
properties. Throughout the conduct of the case for the prosecution, the
Appellant did not put a single question to the adversary witnesses. The two
courts below concurrently found the evidence against the Appellant to be
overwhelming, more particularly, given the detail that he was immobilised and
apprehended right at the scene. The Appellant claims that the trial court did
not consider the defence case.