REPUBLIC VRS (CC3/04/2023) [2023] GHADC 1224 (13 October 2023)

1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ADIDOME ON FRIDAY THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. BEFORE HER WORSHIP MOLLY PORTIA ANAFO-SALIA (MRS) (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) THE REPUBLIC VRS. 1. NICHOLAS BOSOKAH CC3/04/2023 2. BESSAH AKPALU 3. SOLOMON AGBI ANANI PARTIES ACCUSED PERSONS PRESENT. CHIEF INSPECTOR EMMANUEL DZAKU FOR THE REPUBLIC PRESENT. J U D G M E N T The Accused persons were arraigned in this court and charged with the following offences: 1. Unlawful Entry Contrary to Section 152 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 20) and 2. Causing Harm Contrary to Section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The Accused persons pleaded NOT GUILTY. The brief facts as recounted by Prosecution are that; complainant Yao Adukpo and Accused Persons, Nicholas Bosokah, Bessah Akpalu and Solomon Agbi Anani are farmers and a mason respectively and all are natives of Mafi-Adzokoe. The Complainant and family live in his brother’s uncompleted building where some wood a subject matter under litigation between the parties are kept. On the 18th of July 2021 at about 1: 00 am, accused persons went into the said uncompleted building with the intent to stop the Complainant from using some of the wood. The accused persons claim they heard someone cutting some of the wood in the building. They rushed and entered the building without the consent of the complainant. As they got to where the wood was packed, they did not see any one there with the wood and instead of returning to their homes to avoid any possible confrontation, they went ahead and entered the complainant’s bedroom in that hour of the night. The complainant who was not happy with the situation, demanded the accused persons leave his room immediately. This resulted in a scuffle between them and in the process 2nd Accused person held complainant’s middle right hand finger, which already had a wound on it and twisted it. The action of 2nd Accused person aggravated the condition of the wound. After that the Complainant lodged a complaint at the Police station. Police medical form was issued to him to attend any Government hospital for treatment. He returned the endorsed medical form by a Medical Doctor at Adidome hospital. Accused persons were arrested and cautioned to that effect. They admitted going into the uncompleted building housing the complainant. After careful investigation, accused persons were charged and arraigned in court. The plea of NOT GUILTY presumes an accused person innocent until he has pleaded GUILTY or his guilt has been proven as enshrined in Article 19 (2) (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. The same presumption of innocence was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Okeke v. The Republic [2012] 41 MLRG 53 at 61-62 and also in the Republic v. Francis Ike Uyanoume [2013] 58 GMJ 162 at 177 “that a person charged with a criminal offence shall be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty”. It is trite that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout the trial, and it is only after a prima facie case has been established that the accused person will be called upon to give his side of the story. Now, where statute creates an offence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove each and every element of the offence which is a precondition to securing conviction, unless the same statute places a particular burden on the accused person. The fundamental and cardinal principle as to criminal burden of proof should not be shifted slightly. Statute has placed this criminal burden of proof on the prosecution at Sections 11 (2) and 13 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) Section 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 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”. 13 (1): “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”. The prosecution having assumed this burden, filed witness statements of Yao Adukpo, Faustina Gozah and General Lance Corporal Ebenezer Awartey Nartey. They tendered in evidence Exhibits in their possession, Caution and Charge Statements of the Accused Persons, Medical Report, pictorials depicting scene of crime. They were all admitted and marked as Exhibit ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ ‘D’ ‘E’ ‘F’ ‘G’ ‘H’ ’J’ ‘K’ ‘L’ ‘M’ and ‘N’. The Accused Persons filed their witness statements to open their defence. They filed common witness statement of Innocent Fekpe and Akpalu Warrant as well as some Exhibits. The state of the boards, a bench, hammer all in pictorial form and video recordings. They were admitted and marked as follows: Exhibit ‘1’ ‘2’ ‘3’ ‘4’ ‘5’ and ‘6’ respectively. First Prosecution Witness, (PW1) Yao Adukpo evidence was to the effect that on 17th of July, 2021 at about 8:00 pm, he was in an uncompleted building owned by his brother, Courage Adukpo as his residence and was working on a window in one of the rooms. That he finished and went to sleep at about 9:45 pm. Suddenly, the accused persons herein, Nicholas Bosokah, Bessa Akpalu and Solomon Agbi entered his room. Upon interrogation, they said they were there to inspect the wood in the building. According to PW1, he ordered them out of his room and in the course of that 2nd Accused person, Bessa Akpalu held his already wounded right hand little finger and twisted it causing it to bleed. 3rd Accused person, Solomon Agbi had a stick in his hand and used same to hit his ankle. Further, that he lodged a complaint at Mafi-Kumase Police Station and was issued with a medical form to attend hospital which he did and returned same to the police. Second Prosecution Witness, (PW2) Faustina Gozah a wife to PW1, corroborated his evidence. That he joined PW1 to lodge the complaint. Third Prosecution Witness, (PW3) G/L/CPl. Ebenezer Awartey Nartey stated that, on that fateful day, he was on duty as an investigator when a case of Unlawful Entry and Causing Harm was reported by PW1, Yao Adukpo. He obtained statement from him as well as his witness, PW2, Faustina Gozah and invited the accused persons and re- arrested them and cautioned to that effect. That he visited the scene of crime at Mafi- Adzokoe with all the parties. At the scene, wood were packed in an uncompleted building with PW1 occupying a room as his residence Photographs were taken and same tendered. Later the accused persons were charged. The accused persons cross examined the prosecution witnesses and this closed their case. The accused persons opened their defence, a prima facie case having been established by Prosecution. They did so in accordance with Section 174(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30). It states: “At the close of the evidence in support of the charge it appears to the court that a case is made out against the accused sufficiently to require the accused to make a defence and shall remind the accused person of the charge and inform the accused of the right of the accused to give evidence personally on oath or to make a statement”. In relation to the provision above, the first accused person (A1) Nicholas Bosokah stated in his evidence that on that fateful 17th of July 2021, they heard noise from the said uncompleted building where PW1 had packed the wood. Quickly, he informed others and they rushed there. Upon enquiries from PW2, the wife of PW1, they entered the building to check the litigated wood. That he saw one Jonas and PW1 cutting to some of the wood which they claimed ownership. This did not go down well with them but were ordered out of the building but they refused. That PW1 became angry and started throwing the hand saw tool in his hand around and it hit his phone. That PW1 later asked for a hammer from Jonas but refused and he slapped him and Jonas dropped the hammer. PW1 picked it and threw same but none of them got hurt and they (accused persons) took the hammer away. PW1 followed them and exchanged insults. PW1 later lodged a complaint against them. The second accused person, (A2), Bessah Akpalu in his evidence stated, that the subject matter which is the wood was under contention as to its ownership. That PW1 and his children packed same into the uncompleted building, stole some and sold. Later, they tried to collect the wood in broad day and they confronted them which led to a fight. According to A2, he went to a funeral and when he came, he was informed by his wife of his brothers having been there in his absence. Quickly, he went there and met a huge crowd but he managed to enter but was stuck at the corridor. That he heard a metallic sound hit the wall and the crowd started coming out. Later, PW1 lodged a complaint against them at the police station. The third accused person, (A3), stated that, on the 17th day of July 2021, between the hours of 7:00 pm and 8:00 pm, he heard noise of hand saw cutting wood in the uncompleted building where the wood under contention are packed and not far from the community water site where he was at that time. That he informed others about it so they could get the numbers to the scene. They got to PW1’s house according to him, and enquired about PW1. PW2 pointed at the uncompleted building. Quickly they went there because that was where he heard the noise. Upon entry, he saw PW1 cutting into wood with a handsaw with Jonas Asiegbor standing with hammer in his hand. PW1 saw them and asked of their presence there. 1st Accused person replied that they were there to check on the wood. PW1 ordered them to leave the room immediately after he suspected that 1st Accused person was taking coverage of the incident PW1 threw the hammer which was in Jonas possession but never caused havoc. He angrily followed them out with insults. Their common witnesses, Akpalu Worlako, DW1 and Innocent Fekpe, DW2 testified under oath. DW1 stated that, he had a phone call from 1st Accused person, Nicholas Bosokah, that PW1 was using the boards under litigation and they hurried there. That they numbered about twenty (20). They went to the scene and PW1 and his son, Jonas were seen cutting into the wood. PW1 upon seeing 1st Accused Person’s phone torch light, thought same was used as video coverage became angry and threw the handsaw and it hit 1st Accused person ‘s phone and ordered them to leave the building when they enquired about the usage of the wood without their knowledge, PW1 stated that the wood was for his family. PW1 was not happy with their presence and insisted that they leave the building. That he never saw any one hurt PW1’s finger. DW2, evidence was that he was part of the people who went into the building where the wood were packed. This was after 3rd Accused person had confirmed to them that, he heard some noise in the building. Upon arrival, according to DW1, PW1 was seen with his son cutting the wood with handsaw and the son with a hammer in his hand. That PW1 demanded to know their presence and 1st Accused person replied with their mission. PW1 asked whether the said wood belonged to them. There, PW1 threw the hammer in the son’s possession at them and ordered them out of the building. That they took the said hammer and left. After their evidence, Prosecution cross examined them. This closed their case. The Medical Officer, Dr. MacCathy Harrison who was the author of Exhibit ‘G’ the Medical Report of PW1 also testified after he was subpoenaed. Exhibit ‘6’ the video recordings of the scene of crime was also played and evidence given by the first accused person, Nicholas Bosokah. That the wood seen in the video recordings and packed were the wood under litigation of which the police and the Forestry Officers have warned factions or parties not to touch. A report was made to the police and they were asked to produce evidence hence the part shown and saw PW1 and his children packing the wood into a vehicle that they also blocked the road to prevent the vehicle from conveying the wood to a different location. The police were called to the scene. In the night, after they left, PW1 and his brothers packed the wood in a tricycle and sold them. They were cross examined by A3 and the Prosecution. The first and third accused persons were charged with the offence of Unlawful Entry Contrary to Section 152 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Section 152 states: “A person who unlawfully enters a building with intention of committing offence in the building commits a second degree felony.” Also, Section 153 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) explains Unlawful Entry thus “A person unlawfully enters a building if that person enters otherwise than in the exercise of a lawful right, or by the consent of any other person able to give the consent for the purposes for which that person enters”. See Kanjarga v. The State (1965) GLR 479 SC. In order to ground a conviction, the Prosecution would have to lead evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt: 1. that the entry was unlawful; 2. that the entry was with the intention of committing a criminal offence. The issue is: Are the accused persons, A1 and A3 guilty of the offence charged? The evidence of A1 and A3 as to why they unlawful entered PW1’s building was never denied but rather a justification for their action. I wish to consider their Investigation Cautioned Statements, Exhibit ‘A’ and ‘C’. “On 17th July 2021 at about 8:00 pm I was in the house and got information that the board the Police Instructed that no one should touch was being used by complainant. I sent Solomon Agbi to go and verify and he came to inform us that complainant is working with the wood. When he came back, Solomon Tetteh and myself went to complainant’s uncompleted room to check the board packed in the room. Complainant came out and asked what are you doing here. I told him we are here to check the board packed here. On 17th July 2021 at about 9:00 pm, myself with about 30 boys from Adzorkoe town went to Courage Adukpo’s uncompleted building where some boards that Police instructed that no party to touch was packed to find out if it was some of those board that Yaw Adukpo was cutting into pieces for bed? When we got to the corridor of the room, complainant came out of a room and started sacking us. He questioned us what we want I told him we are here to find out if he was using some of the wood. It resulted in a quarrel and insults outside the building. Nicholas Bosokah stood at the entrance of complainant’s door so that none of us will get access to complainant. We left to our various homes. None of us touched him.” The accused persons evidence under oath was not different from Exhibit ‘A and ‘C’ which was their Investigation Cautioned Statements. It was voluntarily given to the Police in the presence of an independent witness, had no contradictions to warrant a doubt for the court to disbelief them. This is what ensued under cross examination with 1st Accused person. Q: Do you actually know why you have been charged with the offence of Unlawful Entry? A: Yes. Yaw Adukpo alleged that he was sleeping in his room and I entered there unlawfully. Q: Do you agree with me that you entered his room unlawfully without his knowledge or without an invite A: I will not agree because I did not enter his room. Q: In your caution statement to the Police, Exhibit A, you stated that you heard cutting of wood so you went there to find out whether the wood which is under litigation was the one PW1 was cutting? A: I said I entered a room where the wood was packed but not PW1’s room. Q: So you will agree with me that where the wood was packed is part of the rooms where PW1 is occupying? A: It is not correct. Q: Will you tell this court where exactly those wood were packed? A: Yes, it is one of the bedrooms. Q: Tell the court where the wood was packed and where PW1 lives, is it all in one building? A: Yes. Q: I am putting it to you that you entered the house which housed the wood and PW1 without PW1’s authority A: It is not true because I did not enter PW1’s room. Q: Tell the court who authorized you before entering that house? A: I did not obtain permission from anybody. Dialogue between Prosecution and 3rd Accused person. Q: And in the same Exhibit ‘C’ you said you and other thirty (30) youth rushed to the uncompleted building, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And when you got there what did you see? A: I saw PW1 cutting into the wood under litigation. Q: And where is that wood, is it in evidence? A: No. Q: Did you inform PW1 before you went there? A: No. From the evidence thus gathered, it is not in doubt that the accused persons, 1st and 2nd Accused persons entered the building which housed the wood as well as PW1. It is in evidence that PW2, the wife of PW1 was questioned as to the where about of PW1, her husband. Except to say that the accused persons though admitted per the evidence before the court for any infractions that might have occasioned but they contend that, they did so for a just cause. Let me state here that per Section 152 of Act 29, the offence of unlawful entry is committed in relation to buildings. Here the building could be all types of buildings dwelling and office as well as uncompleted buildings. It suffices for the offence of unlawful entry to succeed if the prosecution proves any of these buildings. Again, it might prove that either the whole or some part of the body of the accused person or an involuntary agent under the control of the accused person entered the building. A person who intentionally causes an involuntary agent to cause an event deemed to have caused the event. An involuntary agent may be an animal or anything, see Section 13 (1) of Act 29. The accused persons initially have denied entering PW1’s building as part of the evidence. For them to outwit Prosecution meant that they never caused any involuntary agent to cause an event as per Section 13 (1) of Act 29. Now to avoid the offence of Unlawful Entry, a person must ensure that no part of his body or any part of his involuntary agent enters the building. The accused persons could have stood at the windows of the uncompleted building if indeed they wanted not to be charged with Unlawful Entry. Section 153 of Act 29 explains the offence of Unlawful Entry, that a person unlawfully enters a building if that person enters otherwise than in the exercise of a lawful right or by the consent of any other person able to give the consent for the purposes for which that person enters.”. Unlawful Entry may be a defence if the accused person entered the building under a mistake or ignorance of fact in good faith. It is not a strict liability offence, prove of the mens rea is essential. Thus, merely entering a building without the lawful right to do so or without the consent of a person who is able to give consent is not enough to fix a person with liability. It must be established that the accused person so entered the building with the intention of committing a crime. The absence of this factor inures to the benefit of the accused person. Intention as stated by P. K. Twumasi in his book, Criminal Law in Ghana page 77 like any state of mind is incapable of direct proof, it is always inferred from proven facts. The intention as to whether 1st and 2nd Accused persons entered PW1’s room to commit a crime can only be inferred from the proven facts and the surrounding circumstances of the alleged crime. In the instant case, the undisputed facts are that, 1st Accused and 2nd Accused persons entered PW1’s room at the time specified by witnesses in the case. Intention of the person who is alleged to have committed crime shall be proved and it is a material in all criminal cases. In the case of D. P. P. v. Beard [1920] AC 479, the English Court of Appeal decided that, no person could be convicted of a crime unless mens rea is established. The intention of the person and the act committed by the said person come together to make the commission of an offence complete. The courts are required to apply cases before them, see the case of Quartey alias Kuukuaa v. The Republic [1999-2000] 2 GLR 201 CA. Section 11 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 Act 29 states five (5) provisions relating to intent. Section 11 (3) of Act 29 states: “If a person does an act of such a kind or in such a manner as that, if he used reasonable caution and observation, it would appear to him that the act would probably cause or contribute to cause an event that there would be great risk of the act causing or contributing to cause an event, he shall be presumed to have intended to cause that event until it is shown that he believed that the act would probably not cause or contribute to cause the event, or that he did not intent to cause or contribute to it”. Per this provision, the defence available to 1st and 3rd Accused persons who failed to use reasonable caution and observation in their act shall be that they in their act shall be that they believed that the act would neither cause or contribute to the causing of the event. They failed to exercise reasonable caution as a result entered the uncompleted building which housed PW1 and the wood unlawfully. Their intention was to go there to stop PW1 from using the wood at that ungodly hour. Wood they alleged was under litigation and parties warned not to touch and in so doing entered there without express permission and consent from PW1. They had no right whatsoever to have entered there without reasonable caution and observation. There are laws in this country. Where a person’s action may cause an event, the law must take it cause as acceptable in the country. If indeed, PW1’s action violates laid down prodcedure, the law must bite, where one goes contrary to a court order, contempt proceedings is applicable and not to have committed the offence which has occasioned the trial. 1st and 3rd Accused persons consistently stated that, their action was not unlawful and therefore not a crime. A crime is defined in Section 1 of Act 29 as any act punishable by death, imprisonment or fine. It is interesting to note that the meaning of a crime as has been popularized is different from the legal meaning: In law a crime is defined by reference to the legal consequences of the act in question. To qualify as a crime therefore, the act in question must be prohibited by statute and should have attracted a qualifying penalty as defined in the statute. To this end, the charge of Unlawful Entry Contrary to Section 152 of Act 29 is a crime and punishable by imprisonment. The 2nd Accused person was charged with the offence of Causing Harm Contrary to Section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). It states: “Whoever intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to any person shall be guilty of a second degree felony.” From the above, the constituent elements are that the harm caused must not only be intentional, but also unlawful. For an act to be intentional, there must be evidence that the accused person deliberately caused the same or ought to have known that his action would result in that act. These are adequately provided for under Section 11 of Act 29. Section 11 (3) is of relevance to the facts of the instant case. I wish to consider Exhibit ‘B’, the Investigation Cautioned Statement of 2nd Accused person: “On 17th July 2021 at about 8:00 pm, I went into the building of Complainant with Nicholas Tetteh, Solomon Agbi and others. We went there because we had information that the wood that the court has instructed that no one should not touch is being used by complainant and to ask why is he using the wood. It resulted in a quarrel. Yao Adukpo threw a hammer at us. Nobody assaulted him as he alleged”. The 2nd Accused person’s evidence in court and his Caution Statement is a denial of the offence of Causing Harm proffered against him by the prosecution. The evidence during cross examination proved otherwise this is what ensued. Q; Is there any grudge between you and PW1? A: Yes. My family and PW1’s family have a grudge. Q: You stated in your witness statement that your family and that of PW1’s family are litigating over wood? A: Yes. Q: And you stated that the said wood were outside and PW1 packed them in the? A: Yes. Q: Are you saying then that the wood which is under litigation was the same conveyed into the room where PW1 lives? A: Yes. Q: You also said that you heard cutting in the room and you suspected that PW1 was using the wood in contention. A: I did not say that, I heard cutting but I said that my colleagues, 1st and 3rd Accused persons and others went there and I followed later. Q: In your statement you said you heard information that complainant was using the wood under litigation in court, so we went there? A: Yes. Q: So, as you went there, what wood did you see the complainant cutting? A: He was cutting the board. Q: In your Caution Statement, Exhibit ‘B’ and your witness statement you did not state he was cutting the board but rather a bench which you exhibited as Exhibit ‘2’. A: It was the board that he was cutting but when the police came, he said he was cutting the bench, hence Exhibit ‘2’. Q: I am putting it to you that PW1 was cutting the bench as exhibited in Exhibit ‘2’ A: It is not true. Q: So any evidence that PW1 was cutting the board? A: Yes, same tendered as Exhibit ‘1’ and ‘3’. Q: So in Exhibit ‘1’, it is board left to decay in the forest? A: He was cutting the ones in the room but no Exhibits to depict same? Q: In your own caution statement, Exhibit ‘B’, line 10, you stated we asked why he is using the wood. It turned into a quarrel between you and the complainant, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: So did you meet him before the quarrel? A: It is an uncompleted building. I did not enter. I was outside. Q: Do you agree with me that, that building is not your house? A: Yes, it is not my house. Q: Are you aware that complainant was suffering from a wound on his middle finger? A: Yes, I am. Q: I am putting it to you that in the course of the quarrel you held his middle finger which aggravated the wound? A: It is not true. Q: I again put it to you that, it caused the finger to be amputated. A: It is not true. Q: With the permission of the court. I would like to show 2nd Accused person the finger which was amputated Exhibit ‘N’ I am therefore putting it to you that as a result of your holding and twisting the finger, it caused it to be amputated? A: It is not true. Q: In your Exhibit ‘B’ and witness statement, you stated that you went there with other people but you were the one PW1 saw as causing harm to his middle finger? A: It is not true. Q: I further put it to you that you caused Exhibit ‘N’? A: It is not true. Q: But you agree with me that you quarreled with him? A: I did not quarrel with him. It was the group that was responsible. The deduction here is that 2nd Accused person who was charged with Causing Harm to the middle finger of PW1 and same exhibited in Exhibit ‘G’ which was authored by one Dr. Mac-Caulley Harrison, Medical Officer at Adidome Government hospital and who upon a subpoena came to testify, diagnosed “cellulitis of right hand and Myalgia secondary to alleged assault”. Exhibit ‘G’ depicts there was injury caused to PW1 who was seen personally on 20th of July 2021 at 12:40 pm at Adidome Government hospital by Dr. Harrison. 2nd Accused person cannot exonerate himself, besides PW1 as old as he is cannot identify 2nd Accused person as the culprit despite 2nd Accused person’s insistent that the group was responsible. It must be noted that all the parties have or live in Adzokoe community and as such are very familiar with each other. 2nd Accused person’s inconsistencies in his evidence creates doubt in the mind of the court. He has not denied his presence at PW1’s residence but that he was outside and want this court to believe him. Yet he was identified by PW1 as the one who caused harm to his middle finger. The evidence of DW1 and DW2 was a corroboration of their presence in PW1’s residence but alleged that they obtained permission from PW2, the wife of PW1. I do not know whether when you ask of someone from another and shown where that person is can be termed as permission having been sought. Again, that 2nd Accused person came after they had left cannot be true and could not have caused harm to PW1’s finger. It is palpable false and same cannot be accepted by this court. His admission that he organized the group to PW1’s house yet he could not state the exact number as well as their names and the fall out are all the consequences of their action and they have to be responsible. The time given 7:00pm 8:00pm and 9:00 pm as the time they went there was ungodly to the extent that 1st Accused person had to use his phone torch light to illuminate the scene was very unfortunate. Granted that the wood was a subject matter of litigation and parties warned not to touch, there would have been a proper procedure legally accepted to resolve or ameliorate the situation but not why we are here. In all criminal cases, the prosecution can prove their case by either direct or indirect evidence. Direct, where the accused person is caught in the act of committing or has confessed to the commission of the offence. An indirect which can sustain conviction is where the guilt of the accused person is proved by inference of surrounding circumstances, the case of Dogbe vrs. The Republic [1975] 1 GLR 118. 1st and 3rd Accused persons per the evidence adduced have confessed to the offence of Unlawful Entry and without any corroborative evidence can secure a conviction. The 2nd Accused person was at the scene of crime that fateful day. He has not denied that fact. He is known to PW1 and PW2. He cannot therefore escape criminal liability because PW2, in her evidence on oath stated that the accused persons were the people who suddenly came into their uncompleted building where they are residing and 2nd Accused person after PW1 asked that they go out, held PW1’s finger and twisted it and even used a stick to hit PW1’s ankle. The foregoing Section of Section 11 (3) of Act 29 states that when a person commits an act and fails to attend such an action with reasonable caution and observation, then the outcome of that action is intended by that person unless the person has something to show that he did not intend to cause the event. In the instant case, once the accused persons entered PW1’s place unlawfully and caused harm, then the attendant consequences were intended. The accused persons failure to exercise reasonable caution and observation occasioned the offences charged. The accused persons and their two (2) witnesses tried very hard to convince the court to rule in their favour but could not meet the yardstick set down in criminal trials. Credibility of witnesses very paramount. The law is that where a case boils down to fact and credibility of witness, if the court takes the view that one side or the other is the truth then the accounts are mutually exclusive of each other. Once the court decides to believe one side of the story it means the other side is a fabrication, the case of Ansah Sasraku v. the Republic [1966] GLR 294 at 298. The new thinking has been for the courts in this country to look at doing substantial justice and especially in criminal cases such as this which the outcome may be consequential to the accused persons but the injured and the victim equally awaits justice. The law is settled that in all criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused person beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a distinctive feature of criminal cases and it is different from civil cases as stated in Oteng v. The Republic [1966] GLR 323 at 345. The accused persons action have been linked to the offence of Unlawful Entry and Causing harm contrary to section 152 and 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). In the prevailing circumstances, the court finds as a fact that prosecution has been able to discharge the standard burden of proof to prove the guilt of the accused persons. 23 Accused person are found GUILTY of the offences charged Unlawful Entry and Causing Harm Contrary to Section 152 and 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Accordingly accused persons are CONVICTED. MITIGATION 1st Accused pleaded for leniency. 2nd Accused pleaded for leniency. 3rd Accused pleaded for leniency. SENTENCE The court considered the plea in mitigation by the accused persons, their ages and bread winners of their respective families, the fact that they are first offenders as well as their demeanour throughout the trial, the court considered an obtain of a fine. The accused persons sentenced to a fine of hundred (100) penalty units each and in default 12 months imprisonment. In addition, accused persons shall sign a bond to be of good behaviour for six (6) months and in default twelve (12) months imprisonment. 3rd Accused person shall compensate PW1 with an amount of One Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵1,000.00) to defray part of his medical expenses by 31st October, 2023. H/W MOLLY PORTIA ANAFO-SALIA (MRS) (SGD) (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) 13TH OCTOBER, 2023