The Republic Vrs Foe [2023] GHACC 129 (26 July 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT KPANDO ON WEDNESDAY THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2023, BEFORE HIS HONOUR FRANCIS ASONG OBUAJO ESQ., THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. ========================================== SUIT NO. CC /111/2022 THE REPUBLIC VRS GIFTY FOE ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT PROSECUTOR D/INSPT. HENRY ODOI DOKU PRESENT. COMPLAINANT PRESENT J U D G M E N T Accused was charged with the offence of causing harm contrary to section 69 of Act 29/60 and arraigned before this Court. Accused pleaded not guilty to the offence as charged. For accused person pleading not guilty to the offense, the prosecution has taken upon herself the duty of adducing credible evidence to proof all elements of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure her conviction. Sections 11(2) and 13(1) of Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) referred. It was held in YEBOAH AND OTHERS VRS THE REPUBLIC (CONSOLIDATED) [1975] 2 GLR 281-293 that the guilt of the accused must be proven with degree of certainty required by law. The accused has no burden on him to prove his innocence. It is the prosecution which must prove the guilt of the accused. Page 1 of 19 The summary of the facts of the prosecution in this case are that the victim Esinam Bansah age 34 is a tenant in the same house with the accused Gifty Foe age 32 at Wusuta Quarters. The victim and the accused were not on talking term for some time as accused was always gossiping about her to her rival. However on the 26/4/2022 at about 3:00 pm, the victim was in front of her room washing some bowls to prepare super when accused arrived from town and started insulting the victim that her father defecated in the car when he was sick and was being conveyed to the hospital and that the victim is also a thief. The victim responded to the insult and said accused should let her have peace of mind as people put up storey building and rent it out to others to stay in. Lo and behold accused went for a sharp cutlass farm her room to slash the victim. However, Peace Bampo, a witness in this case prevented accused and told her to put the cutlass down. Suddenly accused who pretended going to put the cutlass down rushed on the victim to batcher the head but victim used her hands to block the head and in the process sustained multiple deep cutlass wounds on both arms. Accused there after bolted but was later arrested to the police station while the victim was rushed to Anfoega Catholic Hospital and was admitted and undergoing treatment. Accused has therefore been charged with the offence. PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE Simon Templa PW1 of Wusuta Dzigbe gave evidence on oath that on 26/4/22 at about 5:30 pm he was at a foot ball park and had a phone call from one Herman. He said accused inflicted cutlass wounds on the victim and bolted to Wusuta Ayirebasi. He rushed to the place and met the suspect with the aunt and arrested her to the police station after she had admitted inflicting the wounds on the victim. Peace Bampo of Wusuta Quarters gave evidence on oath as PW2 that she stays in the same area with the victim and the accused. She added that at about 3:00 pm on the 24/2/22 the victim came to ask her husband who conveyed victim’s father to the hospital when he was ill if he defecated into his car as the accused always use that to insult her. PW2 said the Page 2 of 19 husband told the victim not to take that seriously. The victim returned to her house. Few minutes later she visited the victim in the house and met her washing bowls. While there that accused arrived from town. PW2 added that, victim then asked accused what she did to her and even storey buildings are rented out to tenants to stay in. All that time the victim was standing on her corridor and accused was heading towards her room. Suddenly one Da Adzo shouted her name to leave there with the child. PW2 turned and saw accused coming from the room with a sharp cutlass. Accused then threw the cutlass at the victim who was washing bowls and PW2 held the cutlass and started struggling with the accused to disarm her but left the cutlass for accused. PW2 stated further that one Da Afi came to advice accused to stop what she was doing and suspect asked her to leave the cutlass for her to go away and she obliged. Lo, accused rushed on the victim to butcher her head but victim used her hand to block it and she sustained cutlass wounds. Accused then threw the cutlass the second time and chopped off her right thumb. PW2 said she started shouting for help as accused took to her heels with the cutlass. The victim was bleeding seriously and was rushed to the hospital and accused was arrested in town and taken to the police station. PW2 further stated that the victim was not armed with any cutlass or object. Victim also slapped accused when she threw the cutlass to slash victim and PW2 held the cutlass. During cross examination PW2 admitted she held accused’s cutlass and the victim slapped her face as accused asked whether they wanted to kill her in her house. The following exchanges transpired between PW2 and the accused during cross examination on the 25/8/22. Q: Do you recall, I shouted out before you came to the house on that day. A: I did not hear of your shout before coming to the house. Q: Do you recall I shouted and ask what I did wrong before you are slapping me. A: I did not hear of that. Page 3 of 19 Q: Do you recall that the victim was the first to throw a cutlass at me and I also threw one at her and you held it from behind me. A: I do not recall that. Q: Do you recall that the victim was the first to throw a cutlass at me and I also to throw one at her and you held it from behind me. A: I do not recall that. Q: You held my cutlass and told me, you have seen what the victim did to me but I should be patient and not retaliate. A: Not at all. It was when you wanted to throw the cutlass at the victim that I held it back and told you not to do that as you could cause anything to the victim. Q: I put it to you that you held my cutlass and the victim then slapped my face and I asked whether you wanted to kill me in my house. A: That is not true, I want to explain that accused threw the cutlass in an attempt to slash the victim, that was when I held the cutlass and the victim was also going to hold the cutlass and in the process, the victim slapped the accused. Accused then asked me why I held her cutlass for the victim to slap her and I said but for me holding her cutlass she would have slashed the victim. Q: You recall that the two of you were beating me with my eyes covered as I could not see from the soapy water the victim poured into my face and a certain woman was shouting whether you wanted to kill me. A: I do not recall that. Q: You said the victim slapped me, I want to know whether the victim slapped me before I slashed her or after slashing her that the victim slapped me. A: The victim was first slashed before she slapped the accused. Page 4 of 19 Q: I put it to you that when I returned from town to the house, you were not present when the victim slapped me twice before you came to the house. A: That is true. (PW2 demeanour smack of guilt) D/Inspector Joseph Agbewu the investigator gave evidence as PW3 that he was on duty on 26/4/22 when PW1 brought accused to the police station at Vakpo that she inflicted cutlass wounds on the victim’s arms. The victim was rushed to Anfoega Catholic Hospital. He then proceeded to the said hospital and met the victim at the emergency ward with deep cutlass wounds on both arms and was undergoing treatment. He issued police medical form to the victim and collected statement from the victim at the hospital. PW3 added that he took a statement from PW1 and other witnesses and visited the crime scene. He abstained caution and charged statements from the accused after instruction to charge her with the offence. Took photographs of the victim while on admission. The endorsed medical form of the victim was submitted. Accused was remanded into prison at Ho and was arranged before this court over the offence. PW3 tendered caution and charged statements of accused into evidence as Exhibit ‘A’ and ‘A1’ respectively. Victim’s endorsed medical form admitted into evidence as Exhibit ‘B’, four (4) photographs of the victim’s cutlass wounds admitted into evidence as exhibit ‘C’, ‘C1’, ‘C2’, and ‘C3’. Receipts of various drugs bought for the treatment of the victim admitted into evidence as exhibit ‘D’ series. The victim Esinam Bansah gave evidence as PW4 that for about six months then she rented a room from one Donkor who is a brother to the accused. She later detected that accused is a close friend to her rival Charity Adu and so always insulted her without any provocation and gossip about her to the rival. Adding that accused informed her rival whenever her husband pays her a visit. On the 26/4/22 at about 3:00 pm she was washing bowls at home. Without any provocation accused started insulting her as a thief and that her father defecated in a car so they should go and wash the car. PW4 added that she then called her sister PW2 to came and witness what accused was saying. Suddenly accused approached Page 5 of 19 her with a cutlass throwing it at her and in the process slashed both of her hands and accused bolted. PW2 rescued her and rushed her to the Anfoega Catholic hospital where she was admitted and treated. During cross examination the PW4 insisted that without any provocation, accused rushed into her room brought a cutlass and while she bent down washing bowls threw the cutlass to slash her hands. The following exchanges also took place between accused and PW4 during cross examination on the 25/11/22 in Court: Q: I put it to you that when PW2 came there, you went for a cutlass and threw it at me first and when I was also about to throw mine at you PW2 then held my said hand. A: That is not true. Q: I put it to you that PW2 had admitted in this court under cross examination that she held my hand with the cutlass. A: That is not true Q: I put it to you that PW2 held me with the cutlass while you slapped me. A: I do not recall that. Q: PW2 held me and you poured soapy water you were washing dishes with on me. Not so. A: That is not true. Q: I put it to you that after pouring the soapy water into my face, you held my hair down while PW2 also held me firmly before I threw the cutlass by way of swinging it. A: That is not true. Q: Are you suggesting that you and PW2 were standing by without doing anything and I came to slash you with cutlass. Page 6 of 19 A; Not so. I was washing dishes as I bent down and PW2 called me up that accused was coming with a cutlass. Q: I put it to you that it was not true that you bent down washing dishes. When I came with a cutlass Peace held my hand with the cutlass with soapy water in my face and could not see anything so I was struggling for survival and started throwing (swinging) the cutlass and did not even know who the cutlass slashed. A: That is not true. She used a big cutlass to slash me and PW2 shouted for help and accused bolted. Q: When I returned from town that fateful Tuesday did I talk to you A: No. Q: Was there any problem between us that Tuesday before I left to town A: I was not on talking terms with you so there was nothing. Exhibit ‘A’, accused’s caution statement taken on the 27/4/22 was that on 26/4/22 she returned from the farm to the house with Aku and the daughter at about 3:20 pm. The victim then started insulting them that they like, gossiping and always, discuss about her to her rival. The victim also insulted her rival that her father stole fowl and was killed by the gods. Later about 4:00 pm she was returning from the corn mill to the house and just as she was entering the house, the victim approached her and started slapping her. She then called one Daa Bea to come and witness what the victim was doing to her. The victim also used standing traditional broom made from palm branches to beat her until it got broken. Accused also rushed to her corridor and took cutlass. The victim also rushed to take cutlass and threw at accused and she dodged it and accused also threw the cutlass that inflict the wounds on her hands. Page 7 of 19 Exhibit ‘B’ the endorsed medical form of the victim by Dr. Loglo of Anfoega Catholic hospital dated 11/5/22 stated that victim was brought to the hospital with active bleeding from multiple laceration thus; i. ii. iii. deep laceration of the left forearm Deep laceration wounds of the right thumb Palmar laceration of the left palm on the hypothealor area. Bleeding was arrested, lacerations were sutured and patent treated and discharged on 29/4/22. Prosecution closed her case and accused was ordered to open her defence. DEFENCE OF ACCUSED PERSON Accused elected and gave evidence under oath that, PW4 lives in a rented room in her father’s house where she lives. She said on that fateful Tuesday she returned from the farm with Atinkua and the daughter to the house. She then visited a nearby house and PW4 started insulting her among others that she has a smelly vagina and does not know how to bath and should learn how to bath. PW4 called her a whore and that when her father died they could not raise money to bury him. Atinkua told PW4 to stop the insult on her but PW4 did not. So she started recording the insults on her mobile phone and PW4 told her to go ahead and do the recording and she was not afraid of anybody. Atinkua said she was going away as PW4 will not heed to her advice to stop the insults on her. Accused added that she followed Atinkua to the corn mill side to mill at about 4:00 pm as she was about to get to her portion of the house. She suddenly got two successive slaps on her face from PW4 but did not react. PW4 then threatened to teach her a lesson that day. Accused then moved to where the well was in the house and got her load from the can mill down, PW4 then used a long traditional broom to beat her back trice and she shouted and asked whether PW4 will like to kill her. It was then she saw PW2 running from downhill to Page 8 of 19 their house. Then PW4 went for a cutlass from her room. PW2 came and held accused hands and said she should hold her peace. Then PW4 came to slap her and told PW2 to leave accused. PW4 came to slap her face again as PW2 was holding her. Accused then said to PW2 that she was the only one in the house and she was helping PW4 to beat her to death. Accused then invoked her father’s ghost on PW2. PW4 at that time was washing her dishes as she kept insulting accused and suddenly poured the soapy water into her face and held accused hair while PW2 was also holding her. At that moment she started swinging the cutlass she was holding in defence of her life and it slashed PW4 in the process. Accused added that she did not know who was slashed with the cutlass as she could not see due to the soapy water in her eyes so she later got to know it was PW4’s hands. Accused explained further that it was when PW4 went for a cutlass and threw at her and she dodged that she also went for her cutlass which she was holding to throw at PW4 before PW2 came and held her hands with the cutlass. While PW2 was still holding her that PW4 poured the soapy water into her face and while PW4 held her hair they started beating her before she swung the cutlass to free herself before the cutlass slashed PW4. Under cross examination, accused maintained that she had to do what she did in defence for her life. The following also took place between the prosecutor and accused during cross examination on the 25/1/23 and 1/2/23. Q: Per exhibit ‘C’ series, the injuries spots sustained, clearly show that you intentionally slashed PW4’s hand and not you just swung he cutlass about. A: That is not true. I did so in self-defence as at that time PW4 held my hair down with soapy water in my eyes. Surrounded with PW2 and PW4. So I was swinging the cutlass in order to free myself. I did not target or intentionally slash PW4. Q: What was your intention for swinging the cutlass at that time? A: I did so in self-defence as I was alone in my house and PW2 came to join PW4 in beating me. Page 9 of 19 Q: I put it to you that PW4 did not provoke you on that day before you intentionally harm her due to a long standing misunderstanding you had with her. A: That is not true PW4 was the one who first rushed in for a cutlass and threw it at me before I also went for a cutlass by the well side. So she went for a cutlass first. Q: Tell the court what position you were on under what condition were you, at the time you threw the cutlass at PW4. A: I was not at standing position at that time. The one who came to separate the fight held my hand together with the cutlass to my chest while PW4 held my hair bent down wards and she was beating my back with blows. As I kept shouting for help and cursing them with the spirit of my dead father to haunt them as they were trying to kill me in my own father’s house. At that time I was able to gather strength and started struggling and throwing the cutlass which I already had in my hand indiscriminately in defence of myself without knowing who the cutlass will slash. It happened to be PW4 and I was then freed. It was only God that saved me from the attacks and beating of PW4 and PW2 on that day. Accused mentioned one Atinkua as her only witness and she was not willing to attend court to testify for accused. She was therefore subpoenaed on the 26/3/23 by this court to attend court to testify for the accused. Atinkua gave evidence on oath as DW1 and mentioned her name as Agbeko Diana Aku of Wusuta who trades in Kenkey. DW1 said she knows both the accused and PW4. She told the court she returned from the farm with the accused to the house on the said day she left for the house before she later heard that accused and the victim had an issue that led to PW4’s hands being slashed by accused with a cutlass. She was not present when PW4 was slashed. She did not witness any quarrel between them before she left for her house. DW1 added that when they returned from the farm, accused went to a nearby house and when Page 10 of 19 she returned to the house then she left and did not witness any quarrels between them before she left their house. THE LAW AND ITS APPLICATION Section 69 of Act 29/60 states that: “A person who intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to any other person commits a second degree felony” Section 76 of Act 29/60 defines unlawful harm as: “Harm is unlawful which is intentionally or negligently caused without any of the justification mentioned in Chapter One of this part” Section: of Act 29/60 interpret ‘harm’ to mean a bodily bust, disease, or disorder, whether permanent or temporary. In BROBBEY AND OTHERS VRS THE PEPUBLIC [1982-82] GLR 608, the essential elements of causing unlawful harm were identified as: (i) (ii) The harm must be intentional The harm must be unlawful (iii) That accused caused the harm. The evidence available at the hearing shows that at the time of the incident there were three persons present at the scene: accused person, PW2 and PW4 the victim. PW1 was nowhere near the crime scene per his own evidence. My finding from the evidence at this stage is that both the accused and PW4 had unresolved misunderstanding and quarrels between then prior to this incident. Both of them had on previous time subjected each other to sore insults on their families. Page 11 of 19 On the day of the incident, it was PW4 who started throwing insults at the accused after DW1 had left the house as PW4 admitted under cross examination that accused did not talk to her even when she returned from town that day as they were not on talking terms. It is my further funding that PW4 was washing her bowls in front of her room when the quarrel ensued between them at the house, as the three of them corroborated this piece of evidence at the hearing. The evidence of PW4 that accused suddenly approached her with the sharp cutlass that she threw it slashing her hand in the process could not be sustained as PW2 told the court that she saw accused coming with a cutlass form her room and throw it at PW4 and PW2 held the cutlass and tried to disarm the accused person and Da Afi came in to prevail on accused to stop the use of the cutlass. Even at that time, PW2 still held on to the cutlass with accused person with her. Accused person was equally not under any attack from PW4 at that time. PW4 admitted under cross examination that PW2 called to inform her that accused was coming with a cutlass. An equally material finding is the fact that PW2 held accused’s hands with the cutlass after her first attempt to slash PW4 and then PW4 came to slap the accused while PW2 continued to hold on to the accused and accused asked PW2 why she held her and allowed PW4 to slap her. PW2 admitted to these facts under cross examination. I hereby reject the evidence of PW2 and PW4 that accused suddenly attacked PW4 with the cutlass and slashed her. In the face of the evidence by the admission of PW2 that she held the accused with the cutlass while PW4 was slapping her and the deep cuts that PW4 sustained, the evidence of PW2 that accused slashed PW4 before she slapped the accused person is untenable and unsustainable. It is my further funding that it was after accused had been slapped by PW4 while held firmly in the hands of PW2 with the cutlass that accused person inflicted the cutlass wounds on PW4. Page 12 of 19 It is my finding of fact that even though PW4 and the accused had a grave unresolved quarrels and misunderstanding between them prior to that day, on the day of the incident it was the PW1 who started handing insults against the accused who was alone at hone when she returned from the town. PW4 went to invite PW2 to come and witness and aided her in the insult. It was PW4 who initiated assault on the accused on that day by subjecting her to slaps on her face and whipping accused with the broom prior to the arrival of PW2 to the scene of crime per exhibit ‘A’. Accused was the one who went for the sharp cutlass to attack PW4 as she felt provoked accused could not succeed in inflicting the cutlass wounds on PW4 in her initial attempt to do so through the intervention of PW2 who then informed PW4 of what accused intended. It is part of exhibit ‘A1’ and evidence-in-chief that PW4 subjected her to insults when she returned from the farm on that day. Adding that when she returned from the town of about 4:00 pm PW4 came closer to her and started slapping her. And that PW4 used broom to whip her till it got broken and so accused went for a cutlass to cause harm to PW4 but was prevented on doing so by PW2. Section 53(1) of Act 29/60 referred. In the ensuing incident after accused caused deep cutlass wounds on PW4 and has confessed to same. I hereby affirm that accused caused the harm to the victim PW4 with cutlass. Accused person put up a defence that self-defence that PW2 while she held her with the cutlass, PW4 poured soapy water into her face and came to slap her, held her hair and bent her head to the ground and slapped her again. She struggled to free herself from them but PW2 held her firmly with the cutlass as PW4 kept slapping her so she invoked a curse on them that her father’s ghost will haunt them. It was in that struggled that she gained strength and started swinging (throwing) the cutlass in defence of her life from them without arming at any of them. It was when the cutlass slashed one of them. She later got to know it was PW4 that she was released. Page 13 of 19 Even through PW2 and PW4 denied these evidence that accused was beaten by PW4, PW2 admitted and corroborated accused’s evidence during cross examination thus; Q: I put it to you that you held my cutlass and the victim then slapped my face and I asked whether you want to kill me in my house. A: That is true. I want to explain that accused threw the cutlass in an attempt to slash PW4, that was when I held the cutlass and the victim was going to hold the cutlass of the accused and in the process, PW4 slapped the accused. Accused then asked me why I held her cutlass for the victim to slap her and I said but for me holding the cutlass she would have slashed the victim. Section 30(1) of Act 29/60 on justification for farce or herm states: “ (1) For the purposes of this Act, force or herm is justifiable which is used or caused in pursuance of a matter of justification and within the limits that are provided for in this chapter”. Section 31(f) of Act 29/60 on grounds on which force or harm may be justified states: “Force may be justified in a case and in the manner, subject to the conditions, provided for in this chapter, on the ground. (f).of a necessity for the prevention of or defence against a criminal offence”. Section 37 of Act 29/60 on the use of force for the prevention of or defence against, criminal offence provides: “For the prevention of, or for personal defence of any other person against a criminal offence, or for the suppression or dispersion of a riotous or unlawful assembly a person may justify the use of force or harm which is reasonable necessary extending in case of extreme necessity even to killing”. Page 14 of 19 It was held in the case of NARTEY VRS THE REPUBLIC [1982-83] GLR 788 CA: “Where the appellant was in his garden when he was challenged by a stranger as to the ownership of the garden. A deadly sight ensued and the appellant killed the attacker while he himself was seriously wounded on appeal against a convection of murder on the grounds of misdirection, the court examined the old authorities, and held that the measure of force required to repulse an attack, on the totality of the evidence was what had to be assessed. The court should not examine the fight blow for blow it order to determine which blow was excessive”. It was further held in NARTEY case (supra) Per curiam that: “we are of the opinion that on the undisputed fasts of this case … had the jury been properly directed on the issue of self-defence, the very core of the appellants defence which the trial judge confused with the issue of provocation to which a limit was set by the law in its extent, they would inevitably have returned a verdict of acquittal …” From the foregoing, clarity thrown on the law on self-defence as in section 30 and 27 of Act 29/60 and the facts of this instant case do appear to me that the issue of self-defence raised by accused is within the law and should be considered. The evidence of the accused person in exhibit ‘A’ to her defence was that PW4, was the one who first subjected her to insults when she returned from the farm on that day. Then PW4 pounced on her slapped her and used a long broom made from palm branches to whip her. It was her further evidence that as she went for the cutlass in an attempt to slash PW4, PW2 held her hand with the cutlass, ceased her as PW4 was washing bowls. PW4 poured soapy water into her face and came over to subject her to beatings while PW2 held on to her as she cried out and questioned them whether they want to kill her in the father’s house. Then she gained and gathered strength and started throwing the cutlass she was holding and slashing PW4 in the process. Page 15 of 19 The prosecution witnesses thus PW1 and PW2 initially denied that PW2 held accused and allowed PW4 to beat and slap her, PW2 under cross examination at the hearing, actually corroborated accused’s case and explained that, that was what actually happened to accused person. It is my humble view that accused was under attack and a crime of assault was being committed against her and she was entitled to use force or harm in defence of her life as required under sections 30 and 37 of Act 29/60. I hereby find and state that acting in self- defence under the circumstance is maintainable and I accept same in accordance with sections 30 and 37 of Act 29/60. See: STATE VRS AMPOMAH [1960] GLR 262 SC. It my further finding that per available evidence at the trial was that it was PW4 who attacked and beat up the accused on the day and was aided by PW2. That is so because PW4, under cross examination admitted that accused did not talk to her on that day as they were not on talking terms prior to attacking and assaulting her. I will now turn to consider the limits of force or harm used by the accused in her self- defence. Section 32 of Act 29/60 on general limits of justifiable force or harm states: “32 Although there may exist a matter of justification for its use, force cannot be justified as having been used in pursuance of that matter (a) which is in excess of the limits prescribed in the section of this chapter relating to that matter or (b) which extends beyond the amount and kind of force reasonably necessary for which force is permitted to be used” Page 16 of 19 In YEBOAH VRS THE STATE [1967] GLR 512-523 CA holding 3 it was held that: “A person could justify the killing of another in self-defence only “in the case of extreme necessity” So that where a person charged with killing his assailant could have avoided the at by easily escaping from his assailant, or could have easily repelled the attacks without inflicting any serious harm, he could not justify the killing of his assailant. However, once the facts came within the provisions of section 37 of Act 29/60, then the degree or quantum of force used would be irrelevant if it was shown that the killing was in circumstances of extreme necessity” In BODUA alias KWATA VRS THE STATE [1966] GLR 51 SC, holding 3 held that: “The plain language of the section showed that what might take away the place of self-defence was the “amount of force” used and not the nature and kind of implement used” In BODUA alias KWATA (supra), the facts are that the appellant was charged with the offence of unlawfully and intentionally causing harm under section 70 of the criminal Code of 1960. The complainant testified that accused cut him several times with a cutlass without any cause and one Gbordjor also hit him with the bat of a gun and he fell unconscious as a result. He went to report the incident to the police. But accused had gotten there first and reported how someone was getting the pots under the palm trees he was tapping broken and spilt the wine. He kept watch and saw the complainant doing so and as he tried to apprehend him a struggle ensued and the complainant struck him with a piece of iron rod a number of times and he used his tapping knife and inflicted the harm on him to save his own life. From these decided cases and how the limit of force or harm as to whether it was excessive or not, as a good defence to self-defence under section 32 of Act 29/60. The principle used in these cases show that, it is irrelevant the implement used and the degree of force or harm used in extreme necessity when the life of the accused came under attack and had to defend himself. Page 17 of 19 The three persons present when the incident happened were PW2, PW4 and the accused. At the hearing the evidence of PW2 and PW4 were inconsistent and contradictory as to how the accused slashed and caused deep cutlass wounds to PW4’s hands. While PW2 said she saw accused coming from her room with the cutlass and she threw the cutlass to slash PW4 in her evidence at the hearing, PW2 under cross examination contradicted herself to corroborate accused’s evidence. PW2 said she saw accused coming from the room with the cutlass and she held her trying to disarm accused and she obliged. Suddenly accused rushed on PW4 to butcher her head but she used her hands to block it and she sustained the deep cuts. Accused threw the cutlass the second time to clash the thumb. On her part, PW4 gave evidence that on that day accused was insulting her so she went to invite PW2 to come and be her witness and PW2 came there. Suddenly accused approached her with a cutlass, throwing it at her and in the process slashed both her hands and accused bolted after that. Here are the contradictions; PW2 under cross examination admitted that she held accused with the cutlass and PW4 came to slap her and accused asked PW2 why she held her for PW4 to slap her. This piece of evidence from PW2 turns shows that accused did not just rush on PW4 and slashed her hands on the day as they want the Court to believe. In her evidence in court PW2 said accused slashed the hand of PW4 before PW4 slapped accused. Under cross examination PW2 now said PW4 while coming to hold the cutlass as she PW2 was holding the accused, PW4 slapped accused. These inconsistencies from the PW2 who appears to be a material witness in this case shows that PW2 she is not truthful to this court over what led to accused slashing PW4’s hands. It is in evidence already that accused person was alone in the house after DW1 Atinkua had left and PW4 went to invite PW2 to the crime scene to be her witness. I hereby reject prosecution evidence that accused suddenly rushed on the PW4 to slash her hands with the cutlass. Page 18 of 19 Accused’s evidence that PW2 held her with the cutlass she went for and PW4 came to slap her after pouring soapy water on her face is more probable and sustainable in my candid view. Accused therefore used the cutlass which she already had in her hands before being subjected to those slaps by PW4 while PW2 held her hands with the cutlass firmly to her chest before she managed in inflicting those deep wounds on PW4 to free herself from them in self-defence. Accused cried out whether they wanted to kill her in her own house when she was being beaten by PW4 as PW2 aided her to do so. What PW2 and PW4 should have done at that time accused went for the cutlass and PW2 succeeded in holding her with the cutlass was to quickly take the cutlass from accused. They did not do that. Therefore in the light of these decided cases on the self-defence that accused pleaded this YEBOAH VRS. THE STATE (supra) and NARTEY VRS THE REP. (supra), she acted within the limit of the law on self-defence on the day as it was extremely necessary to free herself from PW2 and PW4 as she felt her life was in danger. I hereby found accused not guilty as charged and I accordingly acquit her. SGD. FRANCIS ASONG OBUAJO CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. 26/7/2023 Page 19 of 19