REPUBLIC VRS DOVLO AND TWO OTHERS (B1/17/2022) [2023] GHADC 1155 (31 July 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT, HELD AT AGBOZUME ON WEDNESDAY THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP IDDRISU ISSAH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT CASE. NO. B1/17/2022 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS: 1. AUGUSTA DOVLO 2. AMEGASHIE TRODINAM ABOTSI 3. ABLA ------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGEMENT: The accused person herein Augusta Dovlo and two others were charged with arraigned before this court on two counts of assault. The accused persons were charged with conspiracy to assault contrary to sections 23 (1) and 84 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29 and Assault contrary to section 84 of the Act 29. The first accused person pleaded guilty to both charges and was accordingly dealt with. The third accused person was at large throughout the proceedings. The only person therefore before this court was Amegashie Trodinam Abotsi A2. Brief facts to this case are that on the 25th of May, 2022 at around 7.00 a.m the complainant went to the A2’s uncle’s house to report an incident between them the day before. The accused persons came in with sticks in hands and subjected the complainant to beatings. They went to the police and reported the conduct of the accused persons. The prosecution invited the following as witnesses: Torgbui Adaklu (PW1); Princess Efu (PW2) and the investigator Obeng Kyere Calab (PW3). The first prosecution witness stated that on the 25th of February, 2022 at around 7.00 a.m he went to the accused person’s uncle’s house. Whilst there the accused persons came in with sticks and subjected him to beatings. Similarly the PW2 also stated that she was running home when she met the PW1 on the ground with the accused’s persons beating him with canes. The PW2 also stated that he was at the station on the 23rd of March, 2022 around 4:35 p.m when the PW1 came to report this case. The statements from the complainant as well as the accused persons and a photograph of the PW1. The statements were tendered in evidence and marked as exhibits A to E. The second accused person, A2 Amegashie Trodinam Abotsi, a furtune teller stated that the complainant against her was not true. According to her, there days to this incident her daughter reported the conduct of the complainant’s daughter to her. She followed up to the complainant house to retrieve his son’s shirts from the complainant’s daughter. When she met the complainant, he father turned to complain about her daughters. The complainant gave her a blow when she was about to return home. On the next day she met the complainants in her uncle’s house, uncle Pepper Vivor. The complainant moved towards her with a hand but her uncle took it away from him. The complainant held her and pushed her to the ground and beat her until her uncle came to her rescue. The accused person (A1) invited Pepper Vivor (AW1) as a witness. He stated that the PW1 came to him with a complaint against the accused person. The accused person came to meet the complainant. Suddenly the PW1 rushed on the accused person while holding a cutlass. He took the cutlass away to keep else-where on his return he saw the PW1 sitting on the accused person while beating her. He separated them. Given the evidence before it the court found the following as its findings of facts. (1) The accused person and the PW1 had a quarrel. (2) The accused person as well as the PW1 visited each other on different occasions on the matter. (3) The accused person and others met the PW1 in the house of Pepper Vivor, an uncle to the accused persons. Following the facts of this case the relevant questions for determination are as follows: (1) Whether or not the accused persons conspired to assault the complainant (2) Whether or not the accused persons assaulted the complainant. Generally the burden of proof of any fact which leads to the guilt of the accused person rest with the prosecution. Section 11 of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323 on the burden of proof states as follows: 11 (1) : For the purpose of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to produce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him on that issue. 11(2) In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilty, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt. 11 (3) In a criminal action he burden of producing evidence when it is on the accused as to any fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires the accused to produce sufficient evidence so that on all evidence a reasonable mind could have a reasonable doubt as to guilt. In this case the first charge against the accused persons was conspiracy to Assault contrary to sections 23 (1) and 84 of the criminal offences Act 1960, Act 29. The question therefore before the court is whether or not the accused persons conspired to assault the complainant. Section 23 (1) of the Act 29 on what constitute conspiracy provides as follows: “Where two or more persons agree to act together with a common purposes for or in committing or abetting a criminal offence, whether with or without a previous concert or deliberation, each of them commits a conspiracy to commit or abet the criminal offence. In this case the evidence indicated that the A2 went to the complainant alone. However when the complainant came to the AW! House, the A2 came in with A1. The A1 simply pleaded guilty to the charge. The prosecution tended in picture of the marks of a cane on the complainant’s body. Certainty the A1 could not have been part of the matter under led to the incident. The evidence therefore supports a common purpose in the act. In the case of the state Vrs. Boahene [1963] 2 GLR 554 it was held that the test was whether the parties had a common purpose and not whether they were acquainted with each other. The existence of a common design could be inferred from the subsequent overt acts. The second charge against the accused person is Assault contrary to section 84 of Act 29. The question for consideration is whether or not the accused person assaulted the complainant. The facts out of which this charge arise was that the accused person used sticks to cane the complainant. Section 8 (1) of Act 29 on Assault and battery states as follows: “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 persons” The exhibit E a picture of injuries sustained by the complainant was tended in support of the fact of beatings with a stick, certainly the conduct of other accused person in the view of the court amount to assault on the complainant. Considering the evidence is totality the accused person is find guilty on the charge. At the end of the case the court reached the following conclusion. (1) The accused person is found guilty in conspiracy to assault. (2) The accused person is found guilty on assault. The accused person is hereby sentenced to thirty penalty units on each counts in default three months in prison. The accused person is ordered to pay the sum of GHC700.00 to offset the medical bills of the victim. The sentence as to run concurrently. H/W IDDRISU ISSAH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BOA. 6