REPUBLIC VRS PATRICK (A8/2019) [2023] GHADC 1174 (28 July 2023)

1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT HOHOE ON WEDNESDAY THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE H/W EDITH LUCY DZORMEKU THE MAGISTRATE SUIT No. A8/2019.

THE REPUBLIC VRS.

ADEI PATRICK

JUDGEMENT STATEMENT OF OFFENCE: Assault Count. To section 84 of the Criminal Offence Act of Ghana 1960 (Act 29) PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE: Adjei Patrick, Farmer, Age 42 years: for that you on 20th day of August 2018 in a farm at Santrokofi-Benua in the Hohoe Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this Court you did beat Lydia Owusu with your hands and fist. FACTS OF THE CASE AS PRESENTED BY PROSECUTION: Complaint in this case Lydia Owusu is a farmer at Santrokofi-Benua. While accused Adjei Patrick is also a farmer and resident at Santrokofi-Benua. Complainant has a parcel of land on which she has been cultivated rice on same land leaving about 12 by 12 acres to weed. Accused who does not share any boundary with the complainant claimed ownership of that remaining portion. Since then accused has been telling complainant to vacate the land. On 20/08/2018 at about 11:49am accused went to meet the complainant in her farm weeding, and said to her and I quote “today I have met you alone and I am going to beat you” unquote. Accused without any provocation used his fist to hit the face of the complainant and beat her up. Complainant lodged complain to the Police and Police medical report forms were issued to her to seek medical treatment. Complainant attended Hohoe Government Hospital and returned the endorsed form to the Police. Accused realizing what he has done reported

himself to the police holding a cutlass belonging to complainant and reported that complainant and reported that complainant tried to cut him with the cutlass in the form. After investigation accused was charged with the offence of assault and put before this honourable Court. THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: Prosecution mentioned three (3) witnesses PW1, PW2 AMD PW3 PW1 who is the complaint in this case by name Lydia Owusu states she knows the accused at Santrokofi-Benua. And that on 28th August 2018, at about 11:49am she was in her farm. That her dog barked and she saw accused person moving towards her then accused asked her whether the land belonged to her, accused went ahead to say that he has been monitoring to see her on the land and added that he will beat her up. Later accused asked why she has planted rice on the same land that the (Accused) had already planted rice, then slapped her face and she fell on the ground then accused sat on her and beat her the more. According to PW1, accused poured her rice and food away and took her cutlass home. Complainant, PW1 deposed to the fact that she reported to the matter to the police who took her statement and issued a medical form to her (PW1) and went to the hospital, returned the endorsed medical form to the police which she tendered in Court as Exhibit “A”. PW1 tendered a picture she took immediately after the incident which is

marked Exhibit “B” After cross-examination, PW1 ended her testimony. PW2 by name Constance Kayete, a student at Santrokofi who said she/he knows PW1 and the accused at Santrokofi. And that on the 20th August 2015 on the way to farm met PW1 from farm and that there was mud on the face, dress, chest, mouth and so on, PW1. After cross-examination PW2 also ended the evidence. PW3 is D/Insp. Baah Boah stationed at Gbi-Bla Police station. PW3 deposed to the fact that he was at first stationed at the central police station where he received this report of assault on the complainant on 20/8/2018 for investigation. According to PW3 Police Michael form was issued to the complainant who went to the hospital and returned with the endorsed medical form which was already tendered as exhibit “A”. Nine (9) photograph of PW1 showing mud on her face and dress marked exhibit “B” a caution statement marked exhibit “C” a cutlass marked Exhibit “D” belonging to the complainant charge statement marked exhibit “E” were all tendered before my predecessor through PW1 to the Court as indicated by PW3. PW3 said the accused was called on phone and he reported at the Police station on 23/8/2018 where he was arrested and cautioned. Accused indicated he had no questions for PW3 hence persecution closed its case. THE CASE OF THE ACCUSED PERSON: Accused person (A1) by name Patrick Adjei lives at

Santrokofi-Benua as a mason and a farmer. A1 said his family Batsona has a land known and called Atikanya which he used to farm with his father before his father’s demise. That in 2017 complainant went to cleared portion of the said family land and which was left fallow and since they did not know who cleared the land, Gong was beaten so complainant’s husband came to say it was complainant who cleared it. According to the accused, complainant’s husband summoned himself and his siblings before Nana Letsabi II, paramount Chief of Santrokofi Traditional Area. At the arbitration the panel decided to visit locus and after payment of four (4) cartoon of Castle Bridge each, they were made to clear their various boundaries which they did and that on the locus day they were all present. A1 said in 2018, after clearing his father’s land which shares boundary with complainant’s family land and broadcast rice. One a day complainant went to the farm with her dog and he (A1) also went with his dog. So both dogs wanted to fight but he called his dog which left the other dog but the other dog rushed on him bite him, and he (A1) used his cutlass to hit it. Then complainant also used her cutlass to hit his back. According to A1, he held the two hands of the complainant and said she was lucky the chief warned them not to fight else he would have beaten her. And that he took the cutlass from the

complainant and called the unit committee (member) chairman to report the issue to him and he asked him (A1) to send the cutlass home. And around 2:30pm he reported the issue to central Police station at Hohoe with cutlass on Friday and was told to go home and return on Monday but the cutlass was taken from him. Accused stated he returned on Monday and his statement was taken and required to look for someone to bail him as he was detained. A1 indicated that his wife came to stand surety for him and he returned home. And that he was called later that the complainant said he beat her, he (A1) denied it. Yet he was arraigned before Court. However, on the day of the incident it was only the two of them that were there so he had no witness. Accused thereafter closed his case after cross-examination. APPLICATION OF LAW: Section 84 of the criminal offences Act 1960 (Act 29) provides that: “A person who unlawfully assaults another person commit’s misdemeanor”. Section 85 of the criminal offences Act 1960 (Act 29) mentions the different kinds of assaults as: Assault includes: Assault and battery. Assault without actual battery and Imprisonment”. The definition assault given in Section 86 of the criminal offences Act 1960 is that. “A person makes an assault and battery on another person if without the other person’s consent and with the intention of causing harm, pain or fear or

annoyance to the person, or of exciting the other person to anger that person forcibly touches the other person”. Assault in law is putting another person in fear of unlawful harm, ie without his consent. “In any civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission of by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt”. Section 13 (1) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) referred. To secure the conviction of the accused therefore, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the elements of consent and the intention. The circumstances of occurrences in this instant case clearly indicate(s) Accused forcefully held both hands of the complaint to collect her cutlass which excites the complained to anger. And it is obvious PW1’s consent was not obtained or sought this surfaces a proof of assault on the PW1. In addition, the proceedings on the 30th day of May, 2019 had explanation of the Accused person which states “I did beat the complainant”. It beats my imagination why the Accused person could not be assisted to change his plea on such revelation and confirmation to have him tried summarily. In conclusion Accused has corroborated prosecution’s case to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that Accused deserved to be convicted of the crime of assault. However, it is a fact that the

incident is occasioned as a result of unresolved land dispute between the Accused and the complainant. The Court is entreating both parties to endeavour to resolve the land dispute to restore peace in the family. Consequently, Accused is thereby found guilty of the offence/crime of assault and convicted. Notwithstanding the fact that Accused is convicted, the complainant also erred by removing the new boundary demarcation situated by the Chief of Santrokofi-Benua to restore peace. This fact is gotten from the exhibit ‘C’ where Accused stated that he was having farm boundary dispute with the complainant’s husband and the Chief of the town went and demarcated it for them. However, in 2017, complainant went to remove the new boundary demarcation and cultivated rice on the land, upon harvesting, she (complainant) brought some of the rice to him (Accused). But in 2018, he told complainant not to cultivate the said portion, complainant defied his order and went ahead to cultivate same leaving a small portion to him. He Accused went ahead to weed the purported small portion only for the complainant to have gone to broadcast rice on same. This action of the complainant is reprehensible and needs condemnation. Accused person is hereby sentenced to a term of 25 (twenty-five) penalty units or in default two (2) months imprisonment. Further orders: Accused person is ordered to compensate the complainant with Two Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GHC250.00) as her medical bills since no receipts WERE FILED.

2. Complainant to arrange with the Chief of the town to re-demarcate the boundary that she removed and this should be done within four (4) weeks and report back to the Court.

3. The retrieved object (cutlass) be given back to the rightful owner being the complainant. SGD: H/W. EDITH LUCY DZORMEKU (MAGISTRATE) 29/7/2023. *AFG*