The Republic Vrs Kokroko [2023] GHADC 120 (5 April 2023)

IN THE OTI MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURT HELD AT NKWANTA ON WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP JOSEPH EVANS ANANG OKROPA CC. No. 83/2021 THE REPUBLIC VRS. SAMUEL KOKROKO JUDGMENT The accused person herein was charged with the offence of Causing Harm; contrary to Section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge. Summary of the facts of this case as presented by prosecution are that, the complainant is a hairdresser while accused is a farmer. Complainant whose house is adjacent to that of the accused person, lives with the relatives at Salifukrom, near Nkwanta. On 17th April, 2021 at about 12:00pm complainant was in her room with her son and overheard the mother and the younger sister shouting for help. Complainant came out and met the accused with a machete, about to attack the sick mother in her house. Complainant in the process to prevent the accused from using the machete on the mother, caused the accused become to offended and slashed the waist of the complainant with the machete and she fell down instantly. Accused went into hiding after the crime and was later arrested by the youth of the town and handed over to the Police. In his investigation caution statement, accused admitted the offence and was duly charged and arraigned before this honourable court. CASE FOR PROSECUTION Prosecution’s case is that, complainant was in her room and heard some shouts on the compound of their house. When she came out of her room, she saw the accused herein, wielding a machete in an attempt to attack the mother. The complainant who was by then carrying an early stage of a pregnancy went to the aid of the mother. Accused became offended just because the complainant came to save the mother. Accused then slashed the pregnant woman (complainant) with the cutlass he was wielding. Complainant, per the prosecution’s case fell instantly on the ground and was rushed to a health facility. Prosecution called three witnesses in all, including the Police investigator. The other prosecution witnesses, who were the mother of the complainant, corroborated the evidence of complainant to the effect that, complainant did not in any way provoke the accused to warrant the latter’s action and conduct. CASE FOR ACCUSED (ACCUSED’S DEFENCE) Accused in is defence admitted that he used the Machete on the complainant but he said he just slapped the complainant with the cutlass and that, he did not slash her. Accused person continued that the complainant and the mother used to insult him as a result of a long standing land dispute between them and on the day of the incident, he was holding a cutlass ready to visit his farm when complainant and her mother insulted him again and for that matter, he was provoked. Accused however, could not call any witness, neither was he able to publish the exact words of insults the complainant and her mother rained on him. ISSUES Issues to be determined by this honourable court in the instant case include: 1) Whether or not accused caused harm to the complainant as alleged in the facts of the case. 2) Whether or not accused person was provoked beyond self-control when he alleged that complainant was the one who first hit accused’s leg with a stick, came back to repeat it, and complainant’s mother did same, which made him angry and he “hit” the complainant with the machete. 3) Whether or not prosecution’s charge will lie. EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW Section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) under which the accused person herein was charged is a second degree felony as defined. Accused’s statement volunteered to Police states that, he was relaxing in front of his house after he had returned from the farm and without any provocation, complainant and her mother came and hit him with a stick in turns. As a result, he became provoked and angry and he picked a cutlass and used the blunt side to hit the complainant. He said if he had slashed the complainant with it, the wound she sustained would have been deeper. However, in open court, he said they were insulting him and that provoked him to use the cutlass on the complainant. Provocation under Section 53 of Act 29, when proved does not absolve the perpetrator of the crime from his criminal liability, it only reduces penalty for instance, from murder to man slaughter. However, accused could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was provoked and that was what warranted his action. Whether or not accused really caused harm to the complainant needs no prove since accused himself, admitted hitting the complainant with a cutlass. However, he denied the fact that he slashed her. Whether or not it is a slash, what he did was injurious to the victim and that fact cannot be disputed or denied. FINDING OF FACT From all the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses and accused’s defence, I find as fact the following: 1) There is a remote course to the commission of the instant crime. Accused person and complainant’s family have a long standing land litigation and the list provocation triggers a misunderstanding between the parties. 2) Accused inflicted an unlawful harm on the complainant, even though, from the medical report, it was not severe. 3) Accused in the instant case was not provoked beyond self-control to warrant his action. On the strength of the foregoing arguments, cases and authorities cited and the evidence available to court in it’s entirely, I find as fact that prosecution has been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, to warrant a conviction of the accused person. In view of this, I find the accused person herein, SAMUEL KOKROKO guilty of the offence of CAUSING HARM under Section 69 of Act 29, and I hereby convict him. PRE-SENTENCING HEARING: PLEA OF MITIGATION OF SENTENCE CT: prosecution, is the accused person known? A: Accused is a first offender my lord. The accused person’s family have brought an amount of GHȼ500.00 to compensate and appease the complainant herein. My, Lord, I will leave the accused person in the hands of the court. CT: Samuel Kokroko, before I sentence you, what do you have to say? A: My Lord, I am pleading for Leniency and clemency. What I did is not right. This is my humble plea. By Court: Accused person is a first offender and has been remorseful since the commencement of this case. Again, he has mitigated his sentence by way of paying an amount of GHȼ500.00 into court to be given to the complainant herein as a way of compensating her for the harm inflicted on her which the mother of the complainant has received in good fate. For these reasons the court is going to deal with him leniently as he has pleaded. SAMUEL KOKROKO the accused herein is hereby sentenced to a fine of 100 penalty units and in default 6 months imprisonment IHL. In addition, accused is to execute a bond to be of good behaviour and to live in peace with the complainant and the mother for a period of 12 months. And in breach of the bond, accused shall be given a custodial sentence not less than 6 months. JOSEPH EVANS ANANG OKROPA ESQ 05 – 04 - 2023