REPUBLIC VRS. ARHIN AND ANOTHER (CC/ 82/2024) [2025] GHADC 30 (19 February 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, NEW EDUBIASE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 19TH FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE HER WORSHIP ANASTACIA Y. A. KARIMU, ESQ. CASE NO: CC 82/2024 THE REPUBLIC VRS. 1. EMMANUEL ARHIN @NATURE 2. JOSHUA ARHIN @VEX 4 JUDGMENT 1. The accused persons were arraigned before the court on the 3rd day of September, 2024 on one count of causing harm contrary to section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). They pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution was called upon to prove its case. At the close of the case for the prosecution on 5th November 2024, the court found the evidence adduced sufficiently established a prima facie case against the accused persons and called on them to open their defence pursuant to section 174(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30). 2. The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that the complainant who is a police officer is stationed at the Assin Praso police station in the Central Region. His cousin owns two mobile money stores and has tasked him to supervise the two stores. One is located at Assin Prason while the second is at Adansi Praso. The store located in Adansi Praso is managed by Doris Tandoh. Florence, a friend of Page 1 of 25 Doris Tandoh and the fiancée of the second accused person regularly visits Doris Tandoh at the store. Upon receipt of information that the second accused person is suspected of being involved in mobile money fraud, the complainant warned Florence to stop visiting Doris Tandoh at the store because of her association with the second accused person. This warning got to the notice of the accused persons who naturally took exception to being tagged as robbers. 3. On 13th August, 2024 at about 5:20pm, the accused persons went to the store managed by Doris Tandoh to look for the complainant, but he was not there. While the accused persons were waiting, the complainant arrived on his motorcycle. The complainant got off the motorcycle and as he headed to the store the accused persons, armed with a knife and nails pounced on him and subjected him to beatings to the drain near the store. While the complainant struggled with them to disentangle himself, the accused persons stabbed him multiple times with the nails and also inflicted wounds on his throat with a knife. The complainant managed to disentangle himself and reported the matter to the New Edubiase Police station. The accused persons reported to the police station on 28th August, 2024 on hearing they were wanted by the police. 4. It is a fundamental rule of our criminal practice that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. This is enshrined in Article 19(2)(c) of the Constitution, 1992 as follows “(2) a person charged with a criminal offence shall… (c) be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty or has pleaded guilty.” Hence, in all criminal trials, the burden of proving crime lies with the prosecution who have alleged that the accused person has committed the offence charged. The accused is thus not any under obligation to prove his innocence. Page 2 of 25 5. In the case of Woolmington v. DPP (1935) AC 462, Viscount Sankey LC stated the principle as follows: “Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject to any statutory exception.” Also, in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Antwi [1961] 1 GLR 408, the Supreme Court held that “The fundamental principles underlying the rule of law are that the burden of proof remains throughout on the prosecution and the evidential burden shifts to the accused only if at the end of the case of the prosecution an explanation for circumstances particularly within the knowledge of the accused is called for. The accused is not required to prove anything, if he can merely raise reasonable doubt as to his guilt, he must be acquitted.” 6. The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides for how this burden above ought to be discharged and that is by the production of sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 11 (2) of NRCD 323 provides that: “In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence when on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.” Section 13 (1) of NRCD 323 also provides that: “In any civil or criminal action the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” 7. In the case of Miller v. Minister of Pension (1947) 2 AER 372 Lord Denning J (as he then was) explained proof beyond reasonable doubt as follows: Page 3 of 25 "Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is strong against a man as to leave a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence ‘of course it is possible but not the least probable,’ the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice." 8. Sufficient evidence is not limited to a fixed number of witnesses nor to certain types of evidence. What is required of the prosecution is to produce enough evidence from which the guilt of the accused can be inferred. The evidence of one credible witness is sufficient to convict an accused person of the most heinous crime: Boakye v. The Republic [1999-2000] 1 GLR 740. So long as the rules of admissibility in NRCD 323 are complied with, evidence adduced by the prosecution will be deemed sufficient if it meets the standard of proof required by the law. 9. Section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) defines the offence of causing harm as follows: “A person who intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to any other person commits a second degree felony.” From the above definition, the prosecution must prove the following: a. That harm has been caused to a person, b. That the harm was caused by the accused persons, c. That the harm was caused intentionally, and d. That the harm was unlawful Page 4 of 25 10. According to the first prosecution witness, General Sergeant Stephen Owusu, he is a police officer stationed at Assin Praso police station in the Central Region. His cousin operates a mobile money transaction business at Assin Praso and Adansi Praso. Abigail Abeka and Doris Tandoh operate the Adansi Praso branch. When he is not on duty, he visits the operators at Adansi Praso to supervise their work. Two months prior to this incident Abigail Abeka informed him that her friend by name Florence had expressed interest in working at the storw. He was later informed by Abigail Abeka that Florence was no longer interested in working with her because she had decided to travel to Accra to explore other opportunities there. However, two weeks later, Abigail Abeka informed him that Florence was returning to Assin Praso from Accra to celebrate the Emancipation Day Festival. He warned Abigail Abeka not to share her room with Florence because he had information that Florence was the fiancée of the second accused person and the said accused person was suspected to be a mobile money fraudster. The next time he saw Florence at Abigail Abeka's store, he warned her to stop visiting Abigail Abeka at the store because of her relationship with the second accused person. 11. Unknown to him, Florence had secretly recorded this conversation and shared same with the second accused person. A couple of weeks later, the first accused person confronted him over the issue and demanded to know why he had tagged his brother as a fraudster. A heated argument ensued between them but nothing untoward happened. On 13th August, 2024, at about 5:20pm he went to the store at Adansi Praso to check on Doris Tandoh and the business. As he approached, he saw the first and second accused persons standing close to the store. On reaching the store but before he could stop and alight from his motorcycle, the first accused person slapped his right cheek. He ignored him and proceeded to park the Page 5 of 25 motorcycle. As he entered the store the second accused person joined the first accused person, and they pounced on him and subjected him to severe beatings to the drain by the store. As he struggled to disentangle himself, the first accused person, armed with nails and the second accused person armed with a knife began to stab him in his jaw and neck respectively. He managed to disentangle himself from them. However, he sustained multiple wounds on his jaw, neck, face and legs. Doris Tandoh tried to rescue him but was unsuccessful. After the incident he reported the matter at the New Edubiase police station where he was issued with a police medical report form to attend New Edubiase Government Hospital for treatment and endorsement. He submitted the endorsed police medical form to the police after he was treated and discharged. He also gave a statement to the police. 12. The second prosecution witness Doris Tandoh stated in her evidence that she is a mobile money transfer operator residing at Adansi Praso and the manager of the mobile money transaction service of PW1. The said store is located opposite the New Edubiase taxi rank at Adansi Praso. On 13th August, 2024, at about 5:00pm, the PW1 visited her at the store, and she informed him she had run out of mobile phone chargers. PW1 got on his motorcycle and went to Assin Praso to get the said phone chargers. Shortly after he left, the accused persons came to the store and asked after her “useless boss who is fond of having sexual intercourse with teenagers and his workers.” In response, she told them that their description did not fit PW1. This resulted in an argument between herself and the accused persons. 13. In the course of the argument, PW1 returned to the store. As he was about to park and alight from his motorcycle, A1 approached him and hit his chest with his fist, Page 6 of 25 but PW1 did not react. She took the mobile phone chargers from him. Suddenly the accused persons rushed on him, and in her attempt to restrain them, but they pushed PW1 against her, causing her to be injured on her shoulder. The accused persons then began to beat PW1. During the beating, A1 dashed to the store opposite hers and picked a knife and nails while A2 remained on top of PW1. PW1 managed to disentangle himself from A2 and attempted to disarm A1. In the process, the three of them landed into the drain by her store. A2 managed to get out from the drain, came to her store and picked a mop but she held it and refused to allow him to take it. As she struggled with him over the mop, it got broken. He then picked a stone but one Egya Atta shouted at him to drop it. This angered one Solo from whose store A2 picked the knife and the nails. The said Solo asked Egya Atta why he shouted at A2. The said Solo also asked Egya Atta whether he wanted PW1 to kill A1. After the incident she noticed multiple wounds on PW1’s face with blood oozing from same. The accused persons boarded a taxicab going to New Edubiase while PW1 went to the New Edubiase police station to report the incident. 14. The third prosecution witness, Emmanuel Oteng Kodua stated that he is a driver by profession. On 13th August, 2024, he was at the New Edubiase taxi rank at Adansi Praso when he saw PW1 on his motorcycle slowing down in front of his mobile money operation store. Suddenly he saw A1 rush on PW1 and slap him while his motorcycle was still in motion but PW1 did not react and proceeded to park his motorcycle. As he was heading towards the store, A1 dared him to come and fight him. An altercation ensued between them during which A2 joined A1 to beat PW1. A dashed to PW1’s store, picked a mop and used it to hit him on his back. The first prosecution witness got up from the ground and directed his Page 7 of 25 attention to the first accused person. The first prosecution witness, together with the accused persons fell in the drain by the store. He noticed blood oozing from the first prosecution witness’ face when he emerged from the gutter. 15. Per the evidence of the fourth prosecution witness Detective Chief Inspector Isaac Woyoe, he is stationed at the New Edubiase District Police Headquarters. On 13th August, 2024 a case of causing harm reported by PW1 at the New Edubiase police station involving the accused persons was referred to him for investigations. When he inspected the complainant, he was wearing a torn white T- shirt partly soaked with blood. The blue pair of jeans shorts he was wearing was stained, and so was the rest of his body. He also noticed multiple fresh wounds on his jaws and neck with blood oozing from same. He took photographs of PW1 and obtained a written statement from him, after which he gave him a police medical report form to go to the New Edubiase Government Hospital for treatment. He also took a statement from PW2 and PW3. 16. He visited the crime scene at Adansi Praso opposite the New Edubiase taxi rank. Afterwards, he went in search of the accused persons, but they were nowhere to be found. Later the same day, PW1submitted the endorsed police medical report form after he had been treated and discharged. On 20th August, 2024 the accused persons accompanied by the chief of the Assin Praso Zongo community came to the New Edubiase police station, and he took their investigation caution statements. Upon completion of his investigations the accused persons were found liable. He was thus instructed to charge them with the office of causing harm. Accordingly, he obtained charge statements from them for the offence of causing harm. He tendered the following documents into evidence: Page 8 of 25 a. Exhibit A – the investigation cautioned statement of the first accused person dated 20th August, 2024 b. Exhibit B – the investigation cautioned statement of the second accused person dated 20th August, 2024 c. Exhibit C – the charge statement of the first accused person dated 26th August, 2024. d. Exhibit D – the charge statement of the second accused person dated 26th August, 2024 e. Exhibit E – the endorsed medical form of the complainant dated 13th August, 2024 f. Exhibit E – one photograph of the injured complainant taken on 13th August, 17. In his evidence on oath, A1 stated as follows: that he lives at Adansi Praso. On the 29th of July 2024, rumours were circulating in Adansi Praso and Assin Praso that he and Joshua were thieves, fraudsters, and cursed with bad luck. Per the rumours, Abigail Arhin, their younger sister, and a one time employee of the complainant was also said to be a thief. They discovered that the complainant was the initiator of these rumours. And because he is a police officer, members of the two communities believed the said rumours. He approached the complainant to discuss the rumours with him. In a pleasant manner, he asked the complainant what exactly he and his siblings had done to him to cause him to make such derogatory and false statements about them. The complainant became angry, raised his voice, and asked him to prove whether the rumours were not true. He proceeded to play an audio recording of the complainant telling one Florence to stay away from them. Upon hearing the recording, the complainant became Page 9 of 25 angrier and asked what he would do about it. In response, he told the complainant he came to seek an explanation about the rumours, but his response shows he is immature. This enraged the complainant all the more who attempted to beat him, but a stranger stopped him. He then went to the complainant's chief inspector to report his behaviour. The chief inspector promised to talk to the complainant and redirected him to see the commander. However, when he went to see the commander, he was not in the office. He went there several times afterward, but did not meet him. 18. On 13th August 2024, A1, who is his brother, called to inform him that the complainant had called him a thief. He advised his brother not to utter a word to the complainant. Later on, he met up with A2 and they went to an employee of the complainant by name Frema to address the issue with her. As soon as they left Frema’s premises, they saw the complainant approaching on a motorbike. He came toward them on the pedestrian walkway and nearly hit them with his motorbike. He then shouted "Thieves, where are you coming from?” His brother Joshua asked him what they had stolen from him to warrant him calling them thieves. The complainant replied, "Aren't you thieves and fraudsters?" He also asked them if they were not the ones who sent Florence money to return to Accra. Joshua replied, “How is it your business if I have given Florence money to relocate to Accra?” He then told the complainant that they respect him a lot, but it was unfair that he as a police officer would go around damaging their reputation when neither he nor any other police officer had ever arrested any of them for stealing, just because of a young girl. This infuriated the complainant who removed his jacket, slapped A2, and subjected him to beatings until A2 collapsed. When he attempted to separate them, the complainant turned on him, punched him in his right cheek, Page 10 of 25 and beat him as well. In the course of the fight, the two of them landed in a nearby gutter while his brother remained unconscious. While in the drain, the complainant choked him and dipped his head into the water in the drain several times. He shouted for help, but the complainant did not relent. A stranger who was passing by entered the gutter and tried to separate them but was injured by the rough materials and other substances in the drain, so he gave up and left. He continued shouting for help until A2 regained consciousness and came to his rescue. The complainant hurriedly got off him and said to A2, “I will kill you guys. These beatings should even make you stay away from the lady.” He then left. 19. After the complainant left the scene, he realised their clothes were dirty, there was blood oozing from his nose, mouth and all over his body. He sustained multiple wounds on his back, hands and arms. He also saw blood oozing from A2’s nose, mouth and the wounds on his body. They decided to report the matter to the police, but on their way, they received a call that the complainant, his girlfriend and some people were following them in another vehicle. Afraid, they stopped at Apagya, picked a taxicab and went to the nearest clinic for treatment. Before this incident happened, the complainant went to inform their father Mr. Ahuro that he will beat and arrest them when they had never wronged him. The complainant beat them because he is a police officer. He tendered the following in evidence: a. Exhibit 1- 6 photographs showing bruises on his arms and shoulder and one picture of the second accused holding a dirty white shirt b. Exhibit 2- 6 photographs of injuries on the arms and head of the accused persons Page 11 of 25 20. The evidence on oath of the second accused person is that he is a friend of one Mary, a one-time employee of the complainant. The complainant accused him, A1 and some members of the Adansi Praso community of having planned to steal his money. A week later there was a rumour that Mary had stolen the complainant’s money to feed him. One Saturday morning he was on the road close to his house which is also close to the complainant's shop when the complainant came to him and furiously asked him where the money Mary stole from him was. He told him he did not know what he was talking about. The complainant attempted to beat him, but he left the scene and returned home. He informed A1 about the complainant’s derogatory statement, but A1 advised him not to react or disrespect the complainant whenever he sees him. 21. One Wednesday evening his girlfriend Florence, who is the complainant’s ex- girlfriend came to ask him what caused him to get involved in robbery and Momo fraud. Shocked, he informed her he was not involved in such activities. She then gave him a recording of the complainant telling his workers including Florence that he and the A1 are thieves, fraudsters, and cursed with bad luck. On 27th July, 2024 rumours were circulating all over Adansi Praso that he, the first accused person, and their sister are thieves. The complainant tagged his sister as a thief because she rejected his proposals. The rumours were so disgraceful that they couldn't go out of their house. Nevertheless, A1 advised them not to disrespect the complainant or even utter any word to him because he is a police officer. A1 then went to the complainant’s chief inspector to inform him about the complainant’s behaviour. Page 12 of 25 22. On 13th August 2024, he was standing in front of his house when the complainant called him a thief on his way to the mobile money store. He did not react but instead called A1 to inform him about the complainant’s derogatory statement and the stares he received from those who heard the complainant’s statement. A1 again advised him not to utter a word because the complainant was looking for an opportunity to beat them because of Florence. A1 then said he would come for them to go see Frema, an employee of the complainant to discuss the issue with her to see if she can talk to the complainant. After they talked to Frema, they were leaving her premises when they saw the complainant approach them with his motorbike. He nearly hit them with the motorbike. The complainant then shouted, "Thieves where are you coming from?” He asked him what they had stolen from him to warrant him always calling them thieves whenever he saw them. The complainant’s reply was, "Aren't you thieves and fraudsters? Are you not the people who gave Florence money to go back to Accra?” He responded, “How does that concern you?” A1 then told the complainant that they respect him a lot, but it was unfair of him as a police officer to be ruining their reputation just because of a young girl, when they had no issues with him and had not offended him. Angry, the complainant removed his jacket, slapped him and subjected him to severe beatings. The complainant choked him and pulled his head to the ground until he was dizzy and had blood oozing from his nose and mouth. A1 intervened and tried to separate them, but the complainant turned on him, punched him several times. The two fought until they landed in a nearby gutter. When he regained consciousness, the complainant was on top of his brother, choking him and dipping his head in the dirty water in the gutter. But he could not separate them because he was too weak. A passerby entered the gutter and tried to separate them, but he was injured by rough materials in the gutter, so he gave up and left. Page 13 of 25 23. A1 shouted for help, saying the complainant was killing him. He managed to get up and go to the aid of his brother. Before the complainant got off A1, he said, "I will kill you guys.” After the complainant got off A1, he noticed blood oozing from his brother’s nose, mouth and all over his body. They decided to report the incident to the New Edubiase police station. One their way they received a call that the complainant was following them in a police car with his girlfriend and some people. They became afraid and stopped at Apagya until they saw the car pass by. They then turned around and went to the nearest Clinic for treatment. Before this incident, the complainant went to their father and informed him that he will beat and arrest them if he does not stay away from Florence. He tendered in evidence exhibits 3 and 4 which are audio recordings of the complainant speaking to Doris Tandoh and Florence. 24. According to the evidence of the defence witness Kofi Ahuro, five weeks prior to this incident, there were rumours in the towns of Assin Praso and Adansi Praso that the accused persons, who are his sons were involved in robbery and mobile money fraud. When he asked them about the rumours they denied it. One day he was at home when A2 came to inform him that not only had the complainant been calling he and A1 thieves, but he told people they are thieves. He assured the A2 that he will talk to the complainant the next time he came to see him. One afternoon, he was there when the complainant came to tell him that he will beat the accused persons and have them arrested afterwards. He asked the complainant what the problem between them was, and the complainant told him the accused persons had gone to make a complaint against him to his immediate boss. He asked the complainant what the complaint was about, but he failed to tell him and Page 14 of 25 said he will return. He was there when the second accused person brought a recording of the complainant telling people the accused persons and their sister Abigail Arhin are thieves. He also said the accused persons were cursed with bad luck. After listening to the recording, he concluded that the issue between them was because of a lady. He advised the accused persons not to say a word to the complainant, and they both agreed. On 13th August, 2024 he was at work when he had a call that the complainant had beaten and injured the accused persons. He went to the scene and saw multiple wounds on the bodies of the accused persons. He also saw blood oozing from their mouths and noses. He therefore instructed them to go to the nearest police station to report because of the complainant’s earlier threat to beat and arrest them. The accused persons took a taxi to New Edubiase to report the case. He believes the complainant intentionally beat them because he is a police officer. 25. In her evidence, the second defence witness Christiana Adjei stated that she was at the New Edubiase taxi rank at Adansi Praso on the day of the incident, that is 13th August, 2024. At about 4:00pm, she saw the accused persons at the taxi rank. She was near a stall when she saw them talking to someone. About five to ten minutes later she saw the accused persons heading towards her with a smile. While she was talking to them, the complainant appeared on his motorbike and nearly hit them with the bike on the sidewalk, but the accused persons did not react. The complainant then shouted, "Thieves where are you coming from?" while his motorcycle was still in motion, A2 asked him politely why he is calling them thieves. The complainant angrily responded, "Aren't you thieves?" A2 asked him to provide evidence confirming they are thieves. The complainant did not answer but rather repeated harshly that the accused persons are armed robbers and Page 15 of 25 fraudsters, and added, “Aren't you the ones who gave Florence money to go back to Accra?” A1 then said "Agya Owusu we respect you a lot. You know what you are doing is not good at all. Besides a police officer doing all this to young guys, I am even surprised that a matured person [is] acting this way, trying to hit us with motorcycle at the same time calling us thieves just because of a young girl who is at the age of 20 yrs." A2 then asked “So are you not ashamed of yourself? And how does it concern you if I have given Florence money to go back to Accra?” Before she realised the complainant removed his shirt, slapped A2, pounced on him to the ground and subjected him to beatings. A1 tried to separate them, but the complainant turned on him, punched him several time on his right cheek and subjected him to beatings until they fell in a nearby drain. While in there, the complainant dipped A1’s head in the dirty water in the drain several times. A1 tried unsuccessfully to free himself from the complainant’s grip, all the while shouting, “Agya Owusu is killing me.” A man passing by entered the gutter and attempted to separate them, but the complainant would not let go of A1. After several unsuccessful attempts, the stranger was injured by the rough materials in gutter, so he gave up and left. A2 then went into the drain to help A1. It was at this point then that the complainant let go of A1. When A1 and the complainant emerged from the drain, she noticed blood oozing from the mouth of the A2. Blood was oozing from the nose and mouth of A1 as well. The accused persons also had multiple wounds on their bodies. She saw them take a taxi going to New Edubiase. 26. It is plain from the above that the evidence presented by the defence is a complete denial of the prosecution’s case. The decision of this court will therefore depend on the evidence on oath of the prosecution witnesses against those of the defence. In such situations, the law is that the trial court must carefully examine the Page 16 of 25 evidence of all the witnesses as well as other evidence on record before deciding which of the two versions of the event is reasonable. A court cannot reject the defence of an accused person simply because it does not believe it. It must consider whether or not the defence of the accused is reasonably probable. It is only after consideration of the explanation of the accused that the court can conclude the guilt or otherwise of the accused person. In the case of Lutterodt v. Commissioner of Police [1963] 2 GLR 429, the court held that where a trial court “… forms the opinion that a prima facie case has been made, the court should examine the case for the defence in three stages: a. Firstly, it should consider whether the explanation of the defence is acceptable, if it is, that provides complete answer, and the court should acquit the defendant; b. If the court should find itself unable to accept, or if it should consider the explanation to be not true, it should then proceed to consider whether the explanation is nevertheless reasonably probable, if it should find it to be, the court should acquit the defendant; and c. Finally, apart from the defendant’s explanation or the defence taken by itself, the court should consider the defence such as it is together with the whole case, i.e. prosecution and defence together, and be satisfied of the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt before it should convict, if not, it should acquit.” 27. This principle was restated in the case of The Republic v. Victor Selormey [2001- 2002] 2 GLR 424, as follows, “Even if the court does not believe the defence the court must still go further and consider whether the explanation being offered by the accused person is reasonably probable. It is only when the defence has been considered in this light, that the court could come to a conclusion as to the guilt of the accused person.” Page 17 of 25 28. Guided by the above principles, this court will now proceed to consider whether the explanation of the accused persons is acceptable, reasonably probable, or on a consideration of the whole case they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 29. The prosecution, through all four witness adduced evidence that the complainant sustained injuries to his body which was caused by the accused persons when they beat and stabbed him. The first prosecution witness testified that he was stabbed with nails in his jaw by A1 while A2 stabbed him with a knife on his neck. He sustained multiple injuries to his jaw, neck, face and legs. The second prosecution witness also testified that she saw multiple wounds on the face of the first prosecution witness when he emerged from the drain. The third prosecution witness also testified that he saw blood oozing from the face of the first prosecution witness when he emerged from the drain. In exhibit E, which is the medical report, the medical doctor noted stab wounds from a knife on both sides of the jaw of the complainant as well as lacerations on his face, hands and legs which he stated suggest the witness was physically assaulted with offensive objects. The wounds cannot be seen clearly in Exhibit F which is a photograph of the victim with blood on his face and neck. 30. While the accused persons admit the complainant was injured, they deny being the cause of the injuries. The complainant was the aggressor. The complainant attacked A2 after he told him he ought to be ashamed of himself for trying to ruin their lives because of a twenty year old woman. They were also injured when the complainant assaulted them. According to them, the complainant’s injuries were caused by materials found in the drain in which they fell and struggled. The evidence of the accused persons is supported by their two witnesses who testified Page 18 of 25 that they saw multiple wounds on the accused persons and blood oozing from their mouths and noses once they came out of the gutter. Exhibits 1 and 2 show the accused persons with lacerations on various parts of their bodies. 31. PW1, PW2, and PW3 testified that the accused persons assaulted the complainant without provocation. The testimony of PW1 is that he was slapped by A1 while he was trying to park his motorbike. This evidence was corroborated by PW3. However, PW2, in front of whose store the incident occurred testified that A1 punched PW1 in the chest. No Ghanaian will knowingly engage a police officer in any form or altercation. The natural reaction of any civilian of this Republic who encounters a police officer is to speak calmly and respectfully to him, even when the police officer is in the wrong. Hence the probability that the accused persons would openly assault PW1, who also happens to be a friend of their father, is highly unlikely. 32. Contrary to the evidence of the complainant that he only warned Abigail not to share her room with Florence and also warned Florence to stop visiting Abigail at the shop because A2 was said to be involved in mobile money fraud, he is heard in Exhibits 3 and 4 making the following statements, a. That A2 and his sister Abigail are criminals, b. That the accused persons are bad luck and fraudsters, c. That he has banned A2 from coming to his shop because he does not want a criminal in his shop, d. That DW1 admitted that A2 is a criminal, e. That A2 will one day steal from Florence and PW2, Page 19 of 25 f. That whenever people see A2 at the shop, they refused to patronise the services of his shop because of his criminal activities, therefore Florence’s association with the A2 spells bad luck for his business. He therefore forbade Florence from coming to his shop, and g. That he had gone to tell DW1 to inform A2 to stay away from his shop or he will deal with him 33. These statements are confirmation of the accused persons claim that PW1 called them thieves, criminals and fraudsters. Clearly then, the complainant’s answer during cross-examination that he did not call the accused persons criminals is not true. 34. In the facts presented by the prosecution, PW1 is said to have discovered that A2 was suspected to be into mobile money fraud. In his evidence-in-chief, PW1 stated that he gathered that A2 was a mobile money fraudster. How PW1 discovered or gathered the said information is not stated. If he came by that information through his fellow police officers, then his revelation of it to his workers amounts to professional misconduct which must be investigated. For his conduct clearly put the investigation (if such an investigation is ongoing) of his fellow law enforcement officers in jeopardy. I do not believe the claim of PW1 for the following reasons: one he is stationed at Assin Praso in the Central Region. His policing jurisdiction does not extend into the Ashanti Region. No police officer, however experienced, can work outside his jurisdiction without the authorisation of his superiors. Therefore, even if he had discovered or gathered information on the alleged criminal activities of the accused persons, the proper procedure, which I know he is fully aware of, is for him to pass on that information to his superiors Page 20 of 25 who would have taken the appropriate action. For no investigator worth his salt will leak information on suspected criminals to members of the community in which the said suspects live. 35. Secondly, if indeed he discovered or gathered intelligence about the alleged illegal activities of the accused persons, the appropriate action was to pass on the said information to his colleagues at the New Edubiase police station for further investigations to be conducted to confirm the veracity or otherwise of the information. This he failed to do. Third, his tone is exhibits 3 and 4 is not that of someone who has just discovered or gathered information about the alleged criminal activities of the accused. He spoke as one who was sure that the accused persons were criminals. There was not a hint of uncertainty in the statements he uttered about the accused persons and their sister Abigail Arhin. And he knew fully well that his words would be taken as the gospel truth by his hearers because he is a police officer. 36. There are inconsistencies in the evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW3 which should not be present if indeed their story is to be believed. The first is in respect of how many people fell into the gutter. PW1 stated that he fell into the gutter with A1 while PW2 and PW3 testified that PW1 fell into the gutter with both accused persons. The second inconsistency concerns who was the aggressor. PW1, PW2, and PW3 all claim the accused persons were the aggressors. PW1 and PW3 claim that A1 slapped PW1 on his right cheek without provocation. According to PW3, A1 dared PW1 to come and fight him after slapping him. However, PW2 stated that A1 did not slap PW1, but rather punched him in the chest. During cross-examination of Page 21 of 25 PW3 by A1, his story changed. When he was asked about this by A1, his response was that he didn’t hear what A1 said to the complainant. 37. Next, is the issue of the mop. PW2 stated in her evidence that it was A2 who came to her shop for the mop while PW3 in his evidence stated that it was A1 who went to pick the mop from PW2’s store. PW3 testified that A1 struck the back of PW1 with the mop while PW2 stated that the mop got broken as she struggled with A2 over it. She does not mention PW1 being beaten with the said mop by A2. PW3 who claims to have heard A1 challenge PW1 to a fight, made a complete u-turn during cross-examination and said he did not hear PW1 call the accused persons fraudsters and criminals when he arrived on his motorcycle. 38. Throughout her evidence, PW2 looked afraid. Her voice was barely audible, she looked down throughout and was afraid to make eye contact. On his part, PW3 looked disinterested and, in a hurry to leave the witness box. He had the air of someone who wished he would rather be anywhere than in court. I am not convinced these two witnesses were truthful to the court. Their evidence will therefore be disregarded. I am also inclined to disbelieve the portion of the medical report which states that the wounds on PW1’s jaws were from a knife. This is because there is nothing in the report which indicates how a medical practitioner is able to differentiate between a wound caused by a knife as opposed to a nail, broken bottle, a cutlass, or any other thing. 39. In the case of Dabla and others v. the Republic [1980] GLR 501, Taylor, J. (as he then was) held that there are three types of facts which emerge at various stages of every criminal trial. They are, Page 22 of 25 a. the facts which the prosecution may give before the commencement of the actual trial, indicating the material they intend to prove by admissible evidence. b. the facts which the accused person, may, if he chooses, lead in evidence in his defence, and c. the facts which on a consideration of the respective facts of the prosecution and the defence, the presiding judge or magistrate finds as representing in his opinion the actual facts. 40. He held further that “in a court of law operating under the adversary common law system it is the last specie of facts which can be considered as facts properly called and upon the basis of which the court is entitled to adjudicate or make pronouncements. The other facts are strictly speaking mere allegations, and they are not facts until the judge or magistrate accepts them as such.” 41. The following are the findings of facts by the court: the complainant, the accused persons and the witnesses are acquainted. As the supervisor of his cousin’s mobile money shop in Adansi Praso, the complainant is a regular fixture in the life of that community and is known by members of the community to be a police officer. The complainant is a friend of Kofi Ahuro, the father of the accused persons. Doris Tandoh is an employee of the Adansi Praso mobile money store supervised by the complainant. She is a friend of Florence who is the girlfriend of A2 and the ex- girlfriend of the complainant. Unhappy with Florence’s new relationship with the second accused persons, the complainant began to spread rumours that the accused persons are criminals, namely mobile money fraudsters and thieves. He Page 23 of 25 also tagged them as bad luck and warned Doris Tandoh not to entertain Florence at the store and told Florence not to visit Doris because of her relationship with A2. These disparaging statements spread in the community and eventually got to the notice of the accused persons who confirmed PW1 as the author of the rumours when Florence recorded his conversation with her and Doris Tandoh. 42. Having warned the accused persons not to step foot in his cousin’s store, he was naturally unhappy when he saw the accused persons coming out of the store on 13th August, 2024. When he saw them, he accused them of being thieves in public and asked them where they were coming from. When A2 asked him for prove of his allegation, his response was to repeat the accusation "Aren't you thieves?" and added “Aren't you the ones who gave Florence money to go back to Accra?” In response A1 said, "Agya Owusu we respect you a lot. You know what you are doing is not good at all. Besides a police officer doing all this to young guys, I am even surprised that a matured person [is] acting this way, trying to hit us with motorcycle at the same time calling us thieves just because of a young girl who is at the age of 20 yrs," A2 then added “So are you not ashamed of yourself? And how does it concern you if I have given Florence money to go back to Accra?” This infuriated PW1 who parked his motorbike, took of his jacket and engaged the accused persons in a fight. The accused persons fought back in self-defence, with PW1 and A1 landing in a nearby drain. All three of them sustained injuries to various parts of their bodies as a result of the fight. 43. A person assaulted has the right to defend himself by striking back at his attacker, even to death. This was the court’s holding in the case of Regina v. Ojojo [1959] GLR 207, where the court held that “…in self-defence, a person assaulted may do more Page 24 of 25 than ward off blows; he is entitled to strike back… Assault is justifiable, even to death, if in self-defence. And that is our law, as provided by section 64(4) of the Criminal Code.” 44. With these facts, I find the explanation of the accused persons to be acceptable. Consequently, they are acquitted and discharged. SGD H/W ANASTACIA Y. A. KARIMU ESQ. [MAGISTRATE] Page 25 of 25