Republic Vrs Korang Iii and Three Others [2023] GHADC 446 (22 June 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT HELD AT NEW ABIREM ON THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 BEFORE H/W. BENJAMIN BENNET ATTABRA. ________________________________________________________________________ SUIT No. B13/3/23 THE REPUBLIC VRS. NANA ASAMOAH KORANG III MOSES YEMBELEMBE AFIA ASANTEWAA LINDA AMOAKOA First Accused ……………………. Present Second Accused ……………….. Present Third Accused …………………… Present Forth Accused ………………….. Present Inspector Ninwie Basilide for prosecution ……Present By Court; JUDGMENT Accused persons were presented before the court on the charges of Act tending to disturb the peace in public place contrary to section 298 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29. And Assault contrary to Section 84 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the two charges thereby necessitating a full scale trial. The case for the prosecution was that A1, Nana Asamoah Korang III is a farmer and the chief of Akyem Abodom. A2, Moses Yembelembe is a teacher by profession, A3, Afia Asantewaa and A4, Linda Amoakoa are traders. All accused persons live at Akyem Abodom. 0n or about the 28/01/2023 at 5:00pm, A1 had an information that one C. K. from Akyem Oda attended the late Kojo Boi’s funeral ceremony at Akyem Abodom and made an announcement to the effect that, A1 was not the chief of Akyem Abodom. On receipt of this information, A1 and A3 went to one Thomas Nsare’s family house at Akyem Abodom where the relatives of the late Kojo Boi were having a discussion including A2. A1 looked through the people and came out of the house without uttering a word. People who gathered around including A4 hooted at A1 and A3. This brought a quarrel between A3 and A4 and they fought. In the process, A3 and A4 sustained bruises on their respective bodies. A2 went and held A3 and A1 upon seeing that, rushed to the scene and fought with A2. People went and separated all the accused persons. The above- mentioned accused persons respectively reported the case to the New Abirem Police and medical forms were issued to them to attend hospital. On 30/01/2023, Police and all the accused persons visited the scene of crime and found out that the incident took place at an open space near the Information centre. Photographs of the scene of crime were taken and after investigations, all the accused persons were charged and arraigned before this honorable court. The defense of the first Accused (A1) was that, on the 27/01/2023 at about 1700 hours he was on board a tricycle popularly known as Pragia coming to Abodom from Akyem Afosu and received information from one Kujo on mobile phone that a certain elderly man from Akim Oda has made an announcement at a funeral ceremony of the late Kojo Boi at Abodom that he Nana is not the chief of Abodom, that one Thomas Nsare was the substantive chief and that people should hail him. As soon as he arrived at Abodom, he went to Thomas Nsare’s house after he went to the funeral ground to find out from the elder who made the alleged announcement but could not find him. On his way to his palace, he heard some noise from people saying his sister Afia Asantewaa had been wounded. And so he rushed to the scene to rescue his sister who had sustained injury on her forehead. According to A1 he saw one Akua Amoakoa who was at the scene and the victim identified her to him as her assailant. Whilst he was about to send his sister, Afia Asantewaa, away, one Yembelembe Moses rushed on him and struck his head with a piece of wood. Witnesses who were present rescued him and his sister and they went to New Abirem Police Station to lodge formal complaint. Thereafter, the officer in charge gave them Police Medical Report Forms to attend hospital for treatment. At the hospital they were admitted observed for some time before they were discharged. Later they gave statement to the police. The defense of the second Accused on the person of Yembelembe Moses (A2) is that he comes from Akyem Kotoku Abodom and a teacher by profession. On the 28th day of January, 2023, he was at the Palace of Nana Nsare Akokoa Yaw II at Akyem Kotoku Abodom where there was also a massive crowd. He was in the process of taking pictures only to turn backwards to see Nana Asamoah Korang III in the middle of the crowd. He later looked around the people present and moved away without any comment. He later heard a noise within the people gathered, and when he moved closer he saw Madam Afofie, a sister of Nana Asamoah Korang III, fighting a lady called Linda Amoakoa where he proceeded to separate the two, together with Brother Kofi Sammy. In the process of the separation, Nana Asamoah Korang III run towards him and gave him a heavy blow on his nose and blood started oozing from his nostrils. They later had an information from a fellow called Yaw Amoah, that a community police (Police Assistant) that a guy who followed Nana Asamoah Korang III in the person of Kwasi Amoako pulled a gun in the process and threatened the people. He reported the case to Akyem Ntronang Police where a medical form was given him to attend hospital for treatment at Akyem Adausena Health Centre. Fortunately, there is a video evidence in support of this statement. The defense of Afia Asantewa the third Accused person was that, on 27/01/2023 at about 5:30pm, she was at Akyem Abodom. One Kujo of Abodom came to the area she was standing to inform Nana Ofori of Abodom that some people were hooting at her mother, Madam Akosua Dei. Later on the chief of Abodom came, and she followed him to the palace and he came out heading towards Nana Kontihene Pramang’s house. She heard people hooting at the chief, Nana Asamoah Korang III. And so she went to the scene and met a crowd. A3 intimated she saw a lot of people including Mama Aisha, Moses Yembelembe, Agadza and C. K. and asked them what their problem was or whether the chief had soiled himself? Whilst she was returning home she met one Akua Amoakoa casting all sorts of abusive words against the chief that; what did the chief Nana Asamoah Korang III want in the community? And she replied, has the chief done something wrong against them. A4 hit her chest with her hand and she replied her same. She then hit her forehead with a stone in her hand. A3 said she sustained a wound on her forehead. One Yembelembe held her and brought her outside the house. A3 stated she engaged A4 Akua Amoakoa in a fight outside the house and people came to separate them. Thereafter, she and Nana Asamoah Korang III came to New Abirem Police station to lodged complaint. They were given Police Medical Report Forms to attend hospital. Where they were admitted and given treatment. Police came to obtain statement from her. The defense of the forth accused person A4 in the person of Linda Amoakoa was that, on the 28/01/2023 at about 5:00pm, she was in front of her provision store and Nana Nsare and his elders returned from the funeral ceremony of the late Kojo Boi at Abodom funeral grounds. She went to their house to witness the ceremony and on her way Nana Asamoah Korang III came to pass by, followed by his sister, Fofie Asantewaa. Before she could realize, Fofie Asantewaa slapped her in the face. She retaliated and they fought. People around including Mr. Moses Yembelembe came to separate them. She was shoved to safety by the people to a certain house. Later, she rushed to Akyem Ntronang Police station and lodged complaint. At the police station she was given police Medical Report Forms to attend hospital for treatment and submitted the report to the Police. Issues to be determined by the court include; (1) Whether or not prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the conduct of the accused persons was an act tending to disturb the breach of the peace in the area? (2) Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that A1 did assault A2? (3) Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that A2 did assault the A1? (4) Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that A3 did assault A4? (5) And whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that A4 did assault the A3? During the course of the trial, prosecution called three witnesses in the person of Mark Kwaning, Kofi Sammy and detective Chief Inspector Henry Acolatse to prove its case. The accused persons however testified without calling a witness in support of their case. Among the exhibits tendered in evidence is a Video footage of the event captured by a bystander that portrays whatever transpired on the day of the incident from the owner of the phones perspective or eye view. The video depicts the various activities of the people the handler captured and the magistrate, prosecutor, staff and the accused persons observed the recording on countless occasions identifying the accused persons and the role each of them played resulting in the instant case. Upon the court apprising itself with what actually happened at the scene of crime in the footage I hold that A1 visited the scene uninvited. Walking around and looking around and left the compound of the house where the people had met. A3 was seen throwing her had to hit somebody ostensibly A4 and that resulted in a fight. A2 was seen shoving the A3 away only to see A1 come to hit A2 that resulted in the fight. A2 was not seen in the video wielding club or any object until they were separated. Per the clip that we watched in the court room it was the A3 who started the fight. Had it not been her first blow the recipient would not have replied. A4 having received the blow admitted she fought with A3 until A2 and other came to separate the fight. A3 was sent out by the A2 only for A1 come to fight him. The hot blows were just flying in the air just like that. 38. Unlawful fights (1) A force used in an unlawful fight cannot be justified under a provision of this Act. (2) A fight is an unlawful fight in which a person engages, or maintains, otherwise than solely in pursuance of a matter of justification specified in this Chapter 298. Disturbing the peace in a public place A person commits a criminal offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding ten penalty units who in a public place, or in a place within sight or hearing of persons who are in that place (a) disturbs the peace by fighting or quarrelling with any other person, or by making a loud or an unseemly noise, or (b) abets an unlawful fight, or uses or applies to any other person who is in that public place or within sight or hearing of it, a violent or abusive term of reproach, or (c) sings a profane, an indecent, or obscene song, or (d) exposes defamatory or insulting writing or object, or with the intention of annoying or irritating any other person, sings a scurrilous or an abusive song or words, whether a particular person is addressed or not, or does an act which is riotous, indecent, disorderly, insulting behaviour, to the obstruction or annoyance of a passenger or person in the public place. In the case of Bosuo vrs. The Republic [1 GLR] 379, the court stated that the gravamen of the offence is the disturbance of peace in a public place. The section sets out a number of acts, each of which when done in a public and within sight of and hearing of other persons, is capable of constituting the offence. However, each of those acts do not constitute a separate and distinct offence. The sections creates are offence and not multiple offences. In the instant case, the court observed as A3 and A4 engaged in a fight at a public place, A2 in his bid to shove the A3 to safety, A1 felt A2 was beating the sister and begun fighting A2. A2 being human could not endure the pain any longer but to reply with repeated blows resulting in the former sustaining cuts, laceration and abrasions in the head. Section 84 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29 states; A person who unlawfully assaults another person commits a misdemeanour. (2) An assault is unlawful unless it is justified on one of the grounds mentioned in Chapter One of this Section 86 of the Criminal offences Act 1960, Act 29 further states; (1) 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 other person, or of exciting the other person to anger, that person forcibly touches the other person. (2) The application of subsection (1) is subject to the following provisions: (a) where the consent of the other person to be forcibly touched has been obtained by deceit, it suffices with respect to intention that the touch is intended to be a touch that is likely to cause harm or pain, or is intended to be a touch that, but for the consent obtained by the deceit, would have been likely to cause harm, pain, fear or annoyance, or to excite anger; (b) where the proper person is insensible, unconscious, or insane, or is, by reason of infancy or any other circumstance, unable to give or refuse consent, it suffices, with respect to intention, (i) that the touch is intended to cause harm, pain, fear or annoyance, or (ii) that the touch is intended to be a touch that would be likely to cause harm, pain, fear, or annoyance to, or to excite the other person’s anger, if that person were able to give or refuse consent, and were not consenting; (c) the slightest actual touch suffices for an assault and a battery, if the intention is an intention as is required by this section; (d) a person is touched, within the meaning of this section, if the body is touched, or if the clothes or any other thing in contact with the body or with the clothes on the body are or is touched, although the body is not actually touched; and (e) for the purpose of this section, with respect to intention to cause harm, pain, fear or annoyance, it is immaterial whether the intention is to cause the harm, pain, fear, or annoyance by the force or manner of the touch itself or to forcibly expose the person, or cause that person to be exposed, to harm, pain, fear, or annoyance from any other cause. In criminal trials, the onus is always on the on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt however minute in the prosecution case inures to the benefit of the accused person. There is a plethora of authorities in support of this legal position, including the celebrated case of Woolmington Vrs. The director of Public Prosecution, (19350 Ac 462. In the case of Donkor Vrs. The Republic (19740) GLR 254 @ 258, which is now captured in section 13 (1) of the Evidence Decree, NRCD 323, and I quote “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 reasonable doubt”, In the case of John Brown Akosa Vrs. C. O. P (1950) 12 W. A. C. A.43. The learned judge did state that “ the law is well settle that there is no burden on the accused, if there is any burden at all on the accused, it is not to prove anything but to raise a reasonable doubt. If the accused can raise only a reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. In the case of Bruce Konuah v. The Republic [1967] GLR 611 the court stated during quarrel between the appellant and a neighbor, he chased her in an effort to beat her up. He was convicted of assault. He appealed contending that he had not touched her. The court held that the mere act of chasing her with the intention of committing a battery on her and thus causing an apprehension in her was sufficient for purposes of proving assault. In the instant case, prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that A3 touched the body of A4 without lawful authority leading to the injury she sustained whereas A4 also touched A3 leading to the injury to her forehead. Likewise A2 shoving A3 away, A1 came to hit A2 without any justification. A2 in reply also attacked the A1 ferociously leading the latter sustaining injuries in the head without his consent. It is the respectful view of this court that prosecution have been able to prove the guilt of all the accused persons on count one. A1, A2. A3 and A4 are hereby convicted as to their guilt. In sentencing the accused persons, view is taken about the role played by the accused in the society. A1 a chief, A2 a teacher, A3 and A4 traders should have known better. Again, accused persons have expended various sums of money at the hospital for treatment of their injuries. I must say the behaviour put up by the accused persons at the community is very reprehensible and must be discouraged. I am of the firm belief that letting them pay a fine in my view will not well serve the end of justice. A1, A2,A3 and A4 are hereby bonded to be of good behaviour for 12 months or in default serve three months imprisonment count one. Furthermore, there would not be an award of compensation to the victims/accused in the case. On count two, prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that indeed A1 did assault A2 hence A1 accordingly convicted as such. A2 bonded to be of good behaviour for 12 months or in default serve a term of three months’ imprisonment. On count three, prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the A2 did assault A1, as a result A2 accordingly convicted as to his guilt on count three. A2 hereby bonded to be of good behaviour for 12 months or in default serve a term of three months’ imprisonment. On count 4, prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that A3 did assault A4 hence A3 accordingly convicted as to his guilt on count 4. A3 is hereby bonded to be of good behaviour for 12 months or in default serve a term of three months’ imprisonment. On count 5, prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that A4 did assault A3 hence A4 accordingly convicted as to his guilt. A4 is hereby bonded to be of good behaviour for 12 months or in default serve a term of three months’ imprisonment. Accused persons are hereby convicted and sentenced. SIGN; BENJAMIN B. ATTABRA DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 22 – 06 – 2023