Republic Vrs Odum and Another (B7/19/2022) [2023] GHACC 976 (9 October 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT DUNKWA-ON-OFFIN; SITTING ON 06TH OCTOBER 2023 CORAM: HIS HONOUR YAW POKU ACHAMPONG CASE NO.: B7/19/2022 THE REPUBLIC VS 1. YAW ODUM @ SHATTA 2. ISHMEAL KWABENA APPIAH @ ASUBONTENG 3. NANA KWAME(at large) 1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED PERSONS PRESENT 3RD ACCUSED PERSON at large DETECTIVE CHIEF INSPECTOR PETER SADAARI FOR PROSECUTION, PRESENT JUDGMENT In the human society, it is not fair that somebody uses force to deprive another of his property or possession. The lawmakers realizing that this canker sometimes engulfs society enacted a law to deal with this offence called robbery. Accused persons were charged with the offence of robbery based on section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29). they were also charge with conspiracy to commit that offence based on section 23(1) of Act 29. Section 149(1) of Act 29 states: Whoever commits robbery is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction on trial summarily or on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, and where the offence is committed by the use of an offensive weapon or offensive missile, the offender shall upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years. Section 149(3) of Act 29 states: In this section "offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use to cause injury to the person or damage to property or intended by the person who has the weapon to use it to cause injury or damage; and "offensive missile" includes a stone, brick or any article or thing likely to cause harm, damage or injury if thrown. Section 23(1) of Act 29 states: Where two or more persons agree to act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a crime, whether with or without any previous concert or deliberation, each of them is guilty of conspiracy to commit or abet that crime, as the case may be. In this case, according to the police prosecution, on 17th June 2021 at about 10:30am, at the outskirts of a town called Kwameprakrom, a crime of the nature as referred to above occurred. The police went into action upon the matter coming before them. Salient of the facts the police said they gathered on this case are itemized as follows: 1. Complainant is a salesman of a company which deals in alcoholic and non- alcoholic beverages and he is resident in Kumasi. 2. 1st Accused and 2nd Accused are small scale miners and are resident at Denkyira Abora; 3rd Accused is at large. 3. On 17th June 2021, Complainant was on board the company’s mercedes benz container truck driven by one Kofi Gyimah and they went to Bogoso and its envrons to supply some goods to the company’s customers. 4. On their way back to Kumasi, they saw one Samuel Awuah @ Nana Adjei emerge from the bush at about 10:30am at the outskirts of Kwame Pra krom. 5. Nana Adjei shouted: “hey stop” and suddenly the accused persons herein wielding an AK 47 rifle, a machete and big stick respectively, also emerged from the bush and 1st Accused gave some warning shots and that made complainant’s company’s vehicle stop. 6. The accused persons robbed the complainant of cash of GH¢34000.00 being the sales for the day and a samsung mobile phone valued GH¢1000.00. 7. On 07th July 2021, at about 12 midnight, the said Samuel Awuah was arrested upon a tip-off. 8. Samuel Awuah admitted the offence in his investigation cautioned statement; he also pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and robbery when he was arraigned before this court concerning this matter and that culminated in his conviction and sentence to 25years imprisonment IHL on both counts by this court(differently constituted). 9. Nana Adjei mentioned in his investigation cautioned statement that 1st Accused herein was his accomplice and leader of the gang that undertook robbery spree on the Dunkwa – Ayanfuri road. 10. According to Nana Adjei, on 17th June 2021 at about 10:30am, he together with the Accused persons herein hid in a cocoa farm at the outskirts of Kwameprakrom and later 1st Accused instructed him to go and stop the said truck of the said company. 11. Nana Adjei stated further that he stood in the middle of the road and stopped the vehicle and in the process the accused persons herein with 1st Accused wielding an AK 47 rifle and 2nd and 3rd Accused persons armed with machete and stick respectively emerged from their hideout and 1st Accused gave two warning shots and that forced the said vehicle of the said company to stop. 12. Complainant and the other person on board that vehicle were robbed of cash of GH¢34000.00 and a Samsung mobile phone and the culprits shared the booty and Nana Adjei got GH¢1000.00. 13. Nana Adjei further told the police that the gun used in the operation was hidden in a bush close to Abora cemetery; on 08th July 2021, Nana Adjei led the police to that location but the gun was not found. 14. On 23rd July 2021, 2nd Accused herein was arrested in a different case at Domenase and brought to Dunkwa-On-Offin and Nana Adjei identified him as the ‘Asubonteng’ he mentioned in his cautioned statement. 15. Nana Adjei repeated his cautioned statement before 2nd Accused and the police; 2nd Accused admitted all the statement Nana Adjei made and also mentioned 1st Accused as their accomplice and their gang leader and the one who keeps their guns. 16. 2nd Accused stated further that on the day of the robbery, he was armed with a machete and that he, 1st Accused and 2nd Accused robbed Complainant of a bag containing some money. 17. 2nd Accused stated further that when 1st Accused shared the booty, he(2nd Accused) got GH¢730.00 as his share. 1st and 2nd Accused persons herein pleaded Not Guilty on both counts and so they joined issues with the prosecution for the prosecution to prove their claims as in the facts herein above written. The prosecution, in seeking to produce evidence to prove their case, called two witnesses. The said Nana Adjei testified first and he was referred to as PW1 and the police officer who investigated the case also testified and she was referred to as PW2. PW1 admitted that he and the accused persons herein agreed to act together to conduct a robbery operation. By that agreement PW1 was to be a whistle blower; he would blow a whistle using his mouth to alert the others that there were ‘robbees’ available. PW1 performed his role accordingly. They eventually succeeded in robbing the complainant cash the sum of GH¢30000.00[emphasis supplied]. PW1 stated that upon sharing the booty, he got GH¢1000.00 as his share. After the operation, they went back to Abora where they resided and hid the gun in a thicket near the Abora cemetery. On 07th July 2021, PW1 was on a similar mission as a ‘whistle blower’ in the context as described above; this time he was monitoring the movement and alertness of police officers on duty at a Police barrier at a place known as Adwenpaye in order to relay information to the Accused persons herein to commit another robbery and the police arrested him(Nana Adjei). He confessed to the police about his nefarious activities and mentioned the Accused persons herein as his accomplices. He then led the police to Abora cemetery and showed them the spot where he kept the gun but the gun was not there to be found. According to PW2, she visited the scene and found one empty shell of AK 47 ammunition and a blue bic pen about a metre away from the scene. She tendered in evidence the documents she said contained the investigation cautioned statements of 1st and 2nd Accused persons. The documents were marked Exhibit A and Exhibit C respectively. That of 1st Accused reads: “I am a galamsey operator and reside at Denkyira Abora. I know convict Samuel Awuah @ Nana Adjei but he is not my friend. I know the parents of the convict. The allegation levelled against me is not true. I never conspire[sic] with convict and any other to rob. I know Asubonteng but he is not my friend he[sic] also stay[sic] at Abora. I know someone call[sic] Nana Kwame but he is a small boy. I am the only one called by name Yaw Odum @ Shatta at Denkyira Abora, I want to state further that, I know the convict also called by is[sic] parent Kobby. On 14/7/2021 I went to Dominase Police Station to see one Inspr. Fofie and Inspr. Solomon came that I have[sic] a case at Dunkwa. I know I was not involved in any case to talk about robberying[.] I was arrested and handed over to Dunkwa Police.” That of A2 reads: “I am a galamsey operator and reside at Denkyira Abora. I know Yaw Odum @ Shatta, Samuel Awuah @ Nana Adjei Kusby and Nana Yaw. I am in the same town with all the above mentioned name[sic] expect[sic] Nana Yaw who stays at Denkyira Dominase. It is true that I conspired with Yaw Odum, Samuel Awuah alias Nana Adjei Kobby to rob the victims of a container trunk[sic] that deal[sic] in alchool[sic] and non achool[sic] drink[sic]. It was Yaw Odum who was wielding a gun and I was holding a machate[sic]. Yaw Odum stood in the middle of the road and gave three warning shots. We made the operations on the 17/6/2021 at about 4:30pm. What happened was that on 17/6/2021 at about 10am, Yaw Odum and convict Samuel Awuah @ Nana Adjei came to my house and told me to accompanied[sic] them to Dunkw[sic] – Ayanfuri strech[sic] of the road to rob a certain van which convain[sic] alcholic[sic] and non alcholic[sic] beverages. We agreed to move from Abora so that we could reach the place to[sic] 4pm to 5pm. Because of hardish[sic], as we are no more working as galamseyer we I[sic] agreed and set off. Odum and Nana Adjei brought pump action gun and loaded six cartridges into it. We came to a spot near Adwenpaye. We hid into the push[sic] arround[sic] the adwenpaye[sic] village[.] [W]e saw the van containing alcholic[sic] beverages coming and convict Awuah Samuel and Yaw Odum rushed to the road and stop[sic] the vehicle. I stood on the road holding a cutlass. Yaw Odum and convict Samuel Awuah went into the van and took a waist bag containing some of [sic]money. We went back to Abora and shared the booty where Yaw Odum gave me cash GH¢730.00 out of it. Later I had information that the convict Samuel Awuah and Yaw Odum have[sic] been arrested. I was involved in another case of stealing and was arrested by Dominase Police and this case of robbery was leveled against me. I want to state further that my other names are Ishemeal[sic] Appiah.” PW2 also tendered in evidence the charged cautioned statements of A1 and A2 in which it is written that the said accused persons relied on their earlier statements. A1 was in court when PW1 testified but was not in court when PW2 testified. He only appeared after the case had been slated for judgment. A2 did not appear in court after he had cross-examined PW1. He only returned when he was arrested in another case and arraigned before this court. This was at the stage in this case when PW2 was under examination-in-chief. A2 testified, after the Court had explained section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1975(NRCD 323) and section 174(1) of Act 30 as well as Article 19(10) of the Constitution, 1992. Section 63 of NRCD 323 states: (1) An accused in a criminal action may make a statement in his own defence without first taking an oath or affirmation that he will testify truthfully and without being subject to the examination of all parties to the action. (2) Such a statement by an accused is admissible to the same extent as if it had been made under oath or affirmation and subject to examination in accordance with sections 61 and 62. (3) The fact that the evidence was given without oath or affirmation, or that there was no possibility of examination, may be considered in ascertaining the weight and credibility of the statement, and may be the subject of comment by the court, the prosecution or the defence. Section 174(1) of Act 30: At the close of the evidence in support of the charge, if it appears to the Court that a case is made out against the accused sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the Court shall call upon him to enter into his defence and shall remind him of the charge and inform him that, if he so desires, he may give evidence himself on oath or may make a statement. The Court shall then hear the accused if he desires to be heard and any evidence he may adduce in his defence. Article 19(10) of the Constitution, 1992 states: No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence. In the testimony of 2nd Accused(A2), he gave his name as Appiah Ishmeal[he spelt same]. A2 admitted knowing A1 but not A3. A2 however said that he got to know the said Samuel Awuah alias Nana Adjei when he(A2) was arrested and taken to the police station. According to A2, on 17th June 2021 at about 10:30am, he was at work. On 20th June 2021, some two people came to inform him that one Inspector Fofie of Dominase Police Station wanted to see him. He proceeded to the police station and met the said Inspector Fofie. Whilst he was chatting with Inspector Fofie, one Inspector Sarpong Ansong came and arrested him(A2) saying that somebody had lodged a complaint against him(A2) that he had gone to steal that person’s things. A2 by way of further testimony denied stealing anybody’s money. A2 denied any knowledge of the mobile phone the police were referring to accusing him of stealing. While on detention at the police station, the police asked Samuel Awuah whether A2 was part of the robbery and Nana Adjei answered in the negative. The police then attempted applying electric shockers on him(Nana Adjei) and he(Nana Adjei) said that he committed the robbery with A2. The police then asked A2 whether what Samuel Awuah said was true and 2nd Accused denied what Samuel Awuah had said. The police did not accept what A2 said and wanted to beat him up. A2 concluded that the charges against him were false. A question is: did accused persons herein together with Samuel Adjei rob the said victims? Another question is: did they use force or threat to steal from the victims? Yet another question is: did they agree to act together to commit the said crime? In Oteng v The State[1966] GLR 352@ 354, SC, Ollennu JSC stated: “One significant respect in which our criminal law differs from our civil law is that, while in civil law a plaintiff may win on a balance of probabilities, in a criminal case the prosecution cannot obtain conviction upon mere probabilities.” This principle found space in the Evidence Act of 1975 i.e. NRCD 323 in section 13(1), to wit: 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. See Sasu Bamfo v Sintim [2012] 1 SCGLR 136 at 138 and Fenuku v John-Teye [2001-2002] SCGLR 985 Cross-examination of PW1 by A1 produced the following: Q. Where did I conspire with you to commit the crime. A. I live with all of you at Abora and that was where we conspired. Q. I put it to you that I have never met with you anywhere to conspire to commit robbery. A. It is not true. You are the one I conspired with to commit the crime. You are called Yaw Odum. Q. I put it to you that on that day 17th June 2021 at about 10:00am as you stated in your witness statement, I was at a mining site working. A. It is not true. The work I and you did at that time was the robbery. When it came to the turn of A2 to cross-examine PW1,the following came up: Q. I put it to you that I have never conspired with you to commit any crime. A. It is not true. We live in the same town and we all planned together to carry out the robbery. Q. I put it to you that I have never had any conversation with you; all that I know is that we live in the same town. A. What you have said is not true; we are all friends and living in the same town and we planned and carried out the robbery together. You just don’t want to tell the truth. Q. Where did we go and share the booty. A. It was in the room of A1 that we counted the money and shared same. PW2 also tendered in evidence a Compact Disc that she said contained a video recording of A2 and Nana Adjei confessing to the crimes. A2 objected to the tendering of the said video in evidence saying that he did not give the statement by his own freewill. The court expressed itself on the quest of the prosecution to tender in evidence the said video as: “This is a video evidence and the video speaks for itself. As it stands, I find the video admissible. The Court will know the premium to place on it. The said CD with the said video on it is hereby admitted in evidence for what it is worth and marked Exhibit E. See section 51 of NRCD 323” In Anas A. Anas v Kennedy Agyepong civil suit no.: GT/892/2018 dated 15 March 2023 at page 44, when it came to light that the words on the defendant’s pen drive in that case, part of which were in Hausa, were neither translated nor transcribed, that court stated: “As obiter dicta, I have to state that where counsel conducts a case where electronic evidence on a device such as a pen drive is tendered, it is not sufficient to fasten the device to a document and go home to sleep. You must answer the following questions (a) Is my electronic evidence in the form that the judge can readily access, interpret, or apply? (b) If the evidence was not played out in court, when, where and how is the judge to access and apply the evidence from the device? (c) Can the judge access electronic evidence not played out in court or translated and transcribed outside court sitting and in the absence of the parties? (d) How convenient will it be to expect the judge outside court hours to plug the device to an electronic system anytime he wants to make a reference to its contents? (d) If the relevant evidence is only a fraction of a bulky content, how reasonable is it to expect a judge after court hours to spend precious time viewing or listening to the entire content to be able to extract the relevant evidence? (e) If the evidence is not in English, what if the judge does not understand the language? and (f) Even where he understands it, is it permissible for the judge to turn himself into an interpreter behind the backs of the parties when he writes his ruling or judgment, which is usually at his home? It is of necessity and desirability that the party tendering the electronic evidence apply to the court for it to be viewed in court. Most counsel do that, but a few forget to do so. Where the evidence is a bulky material, only the relevant or essential parts should be played. Where the relevant parts of the material are bulky or where it is not in the English language, the party tendering it must cause it to be translated and transcribed[sic] for convenience of reference by the parties and the court. Where the material is bulky, no pretension should be made that the judge can store the information in his memory, to be used during ruling or judgment. No one acquires such extra space in his brain on becoming a judge.” Interestingly, these days where pen drive have become the most preferred way of storing electronic information, prosecution chose to present a compact disc(CD) a rather obsolete equipment as the storage device of the said information. Yes the CD was played in open court but having so played same, how do I apply that to the case. No transcription of the contents of the CD was given by the prosecution. Also in Anas v Kennedy Agyapong supra at page 44, the court had stated…: “It is noted that plaintiff translated and transcribed the words uttered by defendant in the Twi language into the English language. The translated words were made available in the statement of claim and embodied in the witness statement of the plaintiff’s attorney and PW1. It is therefore easy to refer to the words complained of without having to mount the pen drive containing those statements on an electronic device any time I had to make a reference to them.” In the instant case, however, Prosecution tendered in evidence the written statement of A2 as produced earlier in this judgment i.e. Exhibit C but the tendering was done in the absence of A2. The tendering of the investigation cautioned statement of A1 was also done in the absence of A1. Thus neither accused person could raise any objection or otherwise when the documents were being tendered in evidence. A1 in Exhibit A denied any involvement in the robbery and also denied ever conspiring with anybody to commit robbery. The prosecution is primarily thus relying on the testimony of Nana Adjei to hold 1st Accused culpable. Cross-examination of PW1 by A1 was scanty; when PW1 made denials under cross-examination, A1 did not probe further. However, in Commissioner of Police v. Isaac Antwi[1961] GLR 408 SC, Korsah CJ stated: “The fundamental principles underlying the rule of law that the burden of proof remains throughout on the prosecution and that the evidential burden rests on the accused where at the end of the case of the prosecution an explanation is required of him, are illustrated by a series of cases. Burden of proof in this context is used in two senses. It may mean the burden of establishing a case or it may mean the burden of introducing evidence. In the first sense it always rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; but the burden of proof of introducing evidence rests on the prosecution in the first instance but may subsequently shift to the defence, especially where the subject-matter is peculiarly within the accused's knowledge and the circumstances are such as to call for some explanation.” The learned judge continued, referring to Archbold's Criminal Pleading, (34th ed.) at p. 371, para. 1001, that: "Where the prosecution gives prima facie evidence from which the guilt of the prisoner might be presumed and which, therefore, calls for an explanation by the prisoner and no answer or explanation is given, a presumption is raised upon which the jury may be justified in returning a verdict of 'guilty'. But if an explanation is given by or on behalf of the prisoner which raises in the mind of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, he is entitled to be acquitted, because if upon the whole of the evidence in the case the jury are left in a real state of doubt the prosecution has failed to satisfy the onus of proof which lies upon them." Also in Woolmington v. DPP, Lord Viscount Sankey stated: “Throughout the web of the English Criminal law, the golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…if at the end of, and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner… the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” See also Dexter Johnson v. The Republic [2011] 2 SCGLR 601 @ 663 per Dotse JSC The language of the investigator herein is so bad that it befuddles me that she should be investigating such a high profile case. Investigations into a criminal case is a very serious business. In fact in our criminal justice system, which is adversarial in nature, the investigator is more or less a judge who investigates the case and comes to a conclusion. By our system, an investigative body does not have power to punish and so they are enjoined by law to present who they find culpable before a court of law for the court to make a determination as to whether that person is liable for punishment or should be left off the hook. The investigator must thus have a good enough command of the English language which is the lingua franca of Ghana. The language the investigator used to write the statements of the Accused persons is below the belt. I find it hard to accept that A2 actually gave such a confession statement. Considering my sentiments about the investigator’s language power and the doubts cast by A2, I reject the Exhibit C as having any probative value in the suggestion by the prosecution that A2 committed the robbery and/or conspired with anybody to commit robbery. It is worthy to note the investigation cautioned statements of A1 and A2 were taken on different days; whereas that of A1 was taken on 14th July 2021 that A2 was taken on 23rd July 2021. I also find one thing striking; whereas in the facts in support of the charges, it is stated that the accused persons made away with GH¢34000.00, when PW1 testified he stated GH¢30000.00. I must also say that upon A2 stating that the police applied electric shockers on Nana Adjei to make Nana Adjei implicate A2, the prosecution did not discredit that evidence under cross-examination. The following is all the cross-examination that Prosecution did of A2: Q. You told the Court that on 17th June 2021, at about 10:30am, you were at work, tell the Court where that workplace is located. A. It was in between Treposo and Abora. Q. I put it to you that on that day and time A1, A3 and the said Samuel Awuah and you were at the outskirts of Kwameprakrom between Kwameprakrom and Ayanfuri. A. It is not true. Q. I put it to you that the four of you did lay ambush on Kofi Gyimah and Edmund Osei Senkyire who were travelling on a mercedes benz truck from Abora towards Dunkwa-On-Offin. A. It is Not true. Q. I further put it to you that on 17th June 2021, while you and the others had laid ambush at the outskirts of of Kwameprakrom, you as A2 were wielding a machete whilst A1 and A3 ie Nana Kwame were wielding pump action guns. A. It is not true. No cutlass was found on me when I was arrested. Q. I put it to you that while you, A1 and A3 were hiding in the bush, Samuel Awuah a.k.a. Nana Adjei who is now a convict in this matter was monitoring the road. A. It is not true. I did not hide in any bush. Q. I put it to you that whilst Samuel Awuah was monitoring the road for you, Kofi Gyimah and Edmund Osei Senkyire arrived at that spot with the mercedes benz truck with registration number… A. I do not know anything about that. I do not even know the Kofi Gyimah and Edmund Osei Senkyire that you mentioned. Q. Upon arrival of the said vehicle... Samuel Awuah a.ka. Nana Adjei prompted you and A1 and A3 of the arrival of the said vehicle, the three of you ie A1, A3 and you jumped onto the road. A. I do not know about that. At that time, I was at my workplace. Q. I put it to you that you are not being truthful with your answers. A. It is the truth I have been telling the court. What I know about the matter is what I have told the court. Q. I put it to you that upon jumping onto the road, A1 fired a gunshot which compelled the driver of the said vehicle to stop. A. I do not know about what you are saying. Q. And that when the vehicle stopped, you, A1 and A3 and the said Samuel Awuah threatened Kofi Gyimah and Edmund Osei Nsenkyire and forcibly took GH¢34000.00 and a samsung mobille phone valued GH¢1000.00 from the said Kofi Gyimah and Edmund Osei Senkyire. A. I do not know about what you are talking about. Q. I put it to you that out of the GH¢34000.00 you had GH¢730.00 as your share. A. It is not true. Q. Finally, I put it to you that you, A1, A3 and Samuel Awuah aka Nana Adjei by the use of threats forcibly took GH¢34000.00 and a samsung mobile phone from Kofi Gyimah and Edmund Osei Senkyire. A. I have not taken any phone and any money from anybody. Ollennu J gave a dictum in one case as: "'Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances, or circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true'." This was a High Court case intituled Majolagbe v. Larbi [1959] GLR 190. Because of the sacrosanct nature of the principle that dictum encapsulates, it has been referred to with approval by Courts some of which are superior to the High Court in later years. See Klutse v. Nelson (1965)GLR 537 @ 542 and Baah Ltd v. Saleh Brothers [1971] 1GLR 119 @ 122. Also Kpegah J. A. (as he then was) in Zabrama v. Segbedzi [1991] 2 GLR 221 @ 246 had this to say: … a person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has a burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true, and he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of the burden. I find prosecution’s cross-examination of A2, to be a pale shadow of itself. It failed to discredit the evidence of A2. In fact it was lacklustre by the measurements of the tenets of cross-examination. In Ackah v. Pergah Transport Limited and Others[2010] SCGLR 728; Sophia Adinyira JSC stated at page 736 that: “It is a basic principle of the law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. The method of producing evidence is varied and it includes the testimonies of the party and material witnesses, admissible hearsay, documentary and things(often described as real evidence), without which the party might not succeed to establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the mind of the court or tribunal of fact such as a jury. It is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more reasonable[sic] than its non-existence. This is a requirement of the law on evidence under sections 10 and 11 of the Evidence Decree[sic].” Section 10(1) of NRCD 323 defines “Burden of Persuasion” and it states: “For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court.” Section 10(2) of the Evidence Act adds that: “The burden of persuasion may require a party to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or non-existence of a fact or that he establishes the existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Section 11 of NRCD 323 defines “Burden of Producing Evidence” and states further as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him on the issue. (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. (3) In a criminal action the 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 the evidence a reasonable mind could have a reasonable doubt as to guilt. (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence. It is worth emphasizing that the complainant herein and the said Kofi Gyimah did not testify in this case. They are the supposed victims of the alleged crimes. Their evidence matters. I do not find PW1’s evidence standing alone as the only direct evidence on the matter to be adequate to establish the guilt of the accused persons. Some form of corroboration by way of some other direct evidence might have given a different impression. Section 7(1) of the Evidence Act states: Corroboration consists of evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn which confirms in some material particular the evidence to be corroborated and connects the relevant person with the crime, claim or defence. By the evidence available to me on this matter, I hold that the prosecution have failed to prove their case after the full trial. I hereby acquit and discharge both Accused persons arraigned before this court in this case. HH YAW POKU ACHAMPONG CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 06/10/2023 18