REPUBLIC VRS ANDANI (B3/1/2023) [2023] GHADC 812 (3 November 2023)

CORAM: IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT KODIE IN THE ASHANTI REGION ON FRIDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE HER WORSHIP MRS CHRISTIANA ODARKOR BRUCE-ASHIRIFIE (ESQ.), THE DISTRICT SUIT NO. B3/1/2023 MAGISTRATE. THE REPUBLIC VRS PRINCE JESUS ANDANI TIME: 9:30AM JUDGMENT The Accused person was arraigned before this court on the 2nd of June, 2023, charged with Causing Harm, contrary to Section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The charge was read and explained to the accused person and he pleaded guilty with explanation. The court heard the explanation and took a decision that the accused had a defence to the charge and entered a not guilty plea for the accused person. In light of that the case was set down for trial. CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION Prosecution called two (2) witnesses in support of its case – the complainant, and the investigator herein. 1 | P a g e SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE The case of the Prosecution is that in the year 2021, the complainant herein one Bismark Bonsu was staying and working in a poultry farm located at Boamang-Maase belonging to his uncle one Simon who is currently domiciled abroad. According to prosecution the said farm collapsed compelling the said Simon to relocate abroad while the complainant relocated to Kumasi. However, whenever the complainant returns to Boamang from Kumasi, he stays in one of the rooms at the farm. Prosecution stated that on the 21st of May, 2023, the complainant returned to the farm from Kumasi to occupy his room at the farm but detected that the lock had been changed. According to prosecution, the complainant then broke into the room but was confronted by accused person that he would not allow him to occupy same even though the complainant introduced himself as nephew of the said Simon. Prosecution stated that on the same day at 10:00pm, the complainant returned from Boamang Township to the farm to sleep but he was again confronted by the accused herein. Prosecution averred that in the course of the confrontation, accused struck the complainant thrice on the head with a big wooden club. According to prosecution the complainant sustained deep cuts on his head and laceration of the left ear which almost left the ear falling from the head. Prosecution stated that the complainant managed to run for his life and the accused person after his act rushed to the police station with the wooden club and a cutlass and falsely lodged a case of assault against the complainant. They added that at the Police station, complainant rushed to the station with the aforementioned head injuries with his shirt soaked with blood and identified accused to police as his assailant. This prosecution stated led to the arrest of the accused person and was subsequently arraigned before this court. 2 | P a g e Prosecution called PW1 who is the complainant herein. In his witness statement filed on the 26th of June, 2023, he stated most of the facts as stated above adding that on that fateful day whilst in the room, the accused person came and confronted him that his uncle has given him a room in the farm to take care of it and so he will not allow him to sleep on the farm. According to PW 1 after the confrontation the accused person left and he also went to town to look for food to buy. He stated that on the same day he returned to the farm around 10pm to sleep but the accused person stood at the front of the room and denied him access inside. He added that the accused person alleged that his uncle said he is a thief and so he should not permit him to occupy the room. It is the case of PW 1 that when he tried to force his way inside, the accused person picked a wooden club besides him and struck him severally on his head, hand and other parts of his body. He stated that he sustained deep cut on top of his head, back of his head and laceration on his left ear and swollen left arm with blood oozing out profusely from the cuts. He added that he managed to run and had the matter reported to the police. The accused person later came to the police station to make a report which he identified him as his assailant and he was subsequently arrested. PW 2 is the investigator of this case and he corroborated the testimony of the accused person. According to his witness statement filed on the 26th of June, 2023 he stated that during the investigation he discovered that after the accused person had inflicted the injuries on PW 1 and knowing very well that his action could result in the death of the complainant took the wooden club with bloodstains and a cutlass and rushed to Boamang police station and made a false report that PW 1 attacked him at the farm with the items. PW 2 tendered into evidence the following Exhibits: 3 | P a g e Exhibit “A” to “A3 -Which are photographs of the injured complainant Exhibit “B” -A picture of the wooden club Exhibit “C” -A copy of a medical form Exhibit “D” - A copy of the investigation caution statement of the accused person Exhibit “E” A copy of the charge statement of the accused person. Prosecution thereafter closed its case and the accused person was invited by the court to open his defence. EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSON According to the Accused person, PW 1 came to the poultry farm given to him by the uncle of PW 1 to take care of and broke the padlock in his absence. It is the case of the accused person that he made PW 1 aware that he cannot sleep there but he insisted that he will sleep at the farm. According to the accused person prior to this incident PW 1 had broken the padlock in his absence of which he reported same to his uncle. He added that his uncle told him that PW 1 cannot come to the premises without his permission. It is the case of the accused person that on the 21st May, 2023 when PW 1 came to the farm he insisted to sleep at the poultry farm by all means and threatened to kill him. He stated that he made him aware that he will not allow him to sleep there and so PW 1 hit him with a wooden club he had on him but he managed to dodge. 4 | P a g e The accused person averred that PW 1 then removed a cutlass that he had on him to attack him and in the process of defending himself PW 1 sustained injuries on his head and ear. The Accused person did not call any witnesses and closed his case thereafter. ISSUE At the end of the trial, the issue to be determined by the court was whether or not the Prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to warrant this Court to convict the Accused person of causing harm contrary to section 69 of Act 29. THE APPLICABLE LAW It is a general principle of law that in every criminal trial, the burden of proof lies on the Prosecution. This principle finds expression in Section 11(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) which provides as follows: “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 reasonable doubt.”. The standard of proof required of the Prosecution by law is to prove the guilt of an Accused person beyond reasonable doubt. This standard of proof is provided under section 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) which states as follows: 5 | P a g e “(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 reasonable doubt” This principle is reiterated in the case of Asare v the Republic [1978] GLR 193 by Anin J. A. where he stated that: “there was no burden on the Accused person to establish his innocence, rather it was the prosecution that was required to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt” The Accused person herein has been charged with the offence of Causing Harm as provided under Section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) as follows: “A person who intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to any other person commits a second degree felony.” It was held in the case of Brobbey & Ors v The Republic [1982 – 83] GLR 608 that: “(1) an essential element for the constitution of the crimes of causing harm contrary to section 69 and causing damage contrary to section 172 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), was that the harm or damage must not only be intentional but also unlawful. Mere harm or damage without more was insufficient.” It follows, from the above-quoted references, that to establish the offence of causing harm, all the following elements must be proven by Prosecution in order to succeed: i. ii. iii. That there was harm caused to a person; That the harm caused was intentional That the harm caused was unlawful. 6 | P a g e According to the evidence of PW 1, the accused person came and confronted him in the room that the farm has been given to him by the uncle of PW 1 to look after same and so he will not allow him to occupy the room. After the confrontation both parties left until in the evening when PW 1 returned to the farm to sleep and the accused person denied him access claiming that PW 1’s uncle said he is a thief and so he should not allow him sleep on the farm. Per the evidence at the trial it was when PW 1 tried to force his way inside, that the accused person herein inflicted the cuts and lacerations on him claiming to be acting in self-defence. It is the law that when an Accused person raises a defence of acting in self-defence to an offence, the prosecution has a burden of satisfying the court that they are sure that the Accused was not acting in self-defence. An accused is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself. In judging whether the Accused had only used reasonable force, the court has to take into account all the circumstances of the case including the situation as the Accused honestly believes it to be at the time, when he was defending himself. The accused person in his evidence in chief stated thus and I quote “On the 21st May, 2023, around 9pm, the complainant came and insisted that he will sleep at the premises by all means and that if I do not allow him he will kill me. I also made him aware that I will not allow him to sleep there. I decided to look for a phone to call the complainant’s uncle but I did not get a phone so I came back to the premises” Per the above, the accused person claimed that PW 1 threatened to kill him if he did not allow him to sleep in the room. Assuming without admitting that what the accused person has stated is exactly as transpired, the accused person should have immediately 7 | P a g e reported the threat on his life to the Police and not to have gone back to the farm to confront and attack PW 1 claiming to be defending himself. Having said that, per the accused persons own showing, PW 1 did not come to the farm with any offensive weapon to have aroused his sense of security as he claimed that the cutlass the accused used to break the padlock was from his kitchen. As was stated in the case of Brobbey & the Ors v The State(supra) for the offence of Causing harm to be established, the Prosecution ought to prove that the Accused person actually caused harm to PW 1 by inflicting the wounds on him and that it was intentional and unlawful. All three ingredients of the offence have to be present to secure a conviction, mere harm without more is insufficient. Emphasis mine. I find as a fact that accused person in his bid to prevent PW 1 from accessing his room on the farm unlawfully and intentionally caused harm to PW 1 by inflicting deep cuts on PW 1’s head as well as lacerations on his left ear. Prosecution has therefore adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the conviction of the accused person herein. I find accused person to be guilty of causing unlawful harm to PW 1 and I hereby convict him of same. SENTENCING The accused person is hereby sentenced to twenty-four (24) months in prison with hard labour. 8 | P a g e ............................................. CHRISTIANA BRUCE-ASHIRIFIE (ESQ.,) (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE). Accused Prosecution Defence Counsel Present ASP Edward Odame Eugene Asare 9 | P a g e