REPUBLIC VRS YEBOAH (B3/16/2023) [2024] GHADC 254 (19 March 2024)

SITTING IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WENCHI IN THE BONO REGION ON TUESDAY THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP ISSAH ABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) SUIT NO B3/16/2023 THE REPUBLIC VRS VIDA YEBOAH JUDGMENT The accused Vida Yeboah was arraigned before this court charged with the offences of threat of death contrary to section 75, and Abetment of Crime to wit Assault contrary to section 20 (1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The court upon an examination of the particulars of offence and the facts set down the following issues for trial; 1. Whether or not the accused uttered the words “I will hit your head with a stick and kill you”. 2. Whether or not those words constitute words of threat of death. 3. Whether or not the said threat put the complainant into any fear of death. 4. Whether or not the accused aided or assisted or instigated anyone to assault the complainant. The facts of the case are that the complainant one Veronica Nfodwaa, age 84years is a farmer and lives at Asuano in Wenchi and the second complainant Kwadwo Simon age 38 is the son of the first complainant. The accused Vida Yeboah is 39years and a trader and lives at Beposo in Wenchi. That the accused is the step daughter of the first complainant as the first complainant was married to the accused person’s father who is now deceased. That when the first complainant’s husband died he left a farmland on 1 which the first complainant cultivated with her deceased son she had with the accused’s late father. That on the 28th day of February 2023, the first complainant went to the said land and found that someone had raised yam mounds on the land. That she investigated and discovered that the accused planted yam on the land. That the first complainant confronted the accused about the yam mounds and accused defended her actions, and said the land was gifted to her by her late father, who was the husband of the first complainant. Then on the 1st day of March 2023 the first complainant reported the matter to the police and the accused was invited for investigations. That after receiving the invitation the accused went to the first complainant’s house and threatened her with words to wit “I will hit your head with a stick to kill you”. Accused was arrested and cautioned after which she was released on bail. That after the accused was granted bail, she (accused) went with her (accused) two (2) sons (now at large) to the house of the second complainant. That they pounced on the second complainant and beat him up for assisting in the arrest of the accused. That whiles her sons beat up the second complainant, the accused stood and watch. That the accused was arrested again but her sons went into hiding. After investigations the accused was charged with the offence. The first prosecution witness (pw1) was the first complainant. She told the court she is a farmer and lives at Asuano. That she knows the accused who is the daughter of her late husband. That the second complainant Kwadwo Simon is her (pw1) son. That they live in separate houses but close to each other. Pw1 said her husband died and left a piece of farmland which she farms on. That the accused then started laying claims to the land and encroached on same. Then on the 1st day of March 2023, she (pw1) reported the matter to the police to help resolve the issue. That the police then invited the accused. Pw1 said the day the accused 2 received the invitation, the accused person came to her (pw1) house with a stick. That she met the accused who had gone into her (pw1) room forcefully but did not meet her (pw1) in the room. That the accused then told (pw1) if she (accused) had met her in the room she (accused) would have “hit her head with the stick and kill her”. That the accused rained insults on her (pw1). There the second complainant (pw2) came and asked the accused why she threatened to kill her (pw1) with the stick. That people heard the accused and came to intervene. Pw2 was the second complainant Kwadwo Simon who said he lives at Asuano. Pw2 said pw1 is his mother but they live in separate house even though they are close. That on the 2nd day of March 2023 at about 8am he (pw2) was in the house when he heard people shouting “Where is she going with the stick”. Pw2 said he stepped out to see what was going on. There he (pw2) saw the accused going to pw1’s house with a long stick in her (accused) hand. Pw2 he saw that accused went and stood in front of pw1’s room. That the accused then pushed the door of pw1 opened and peeped but pw1 was not in the room at the time. That the accused then shouted that “if I had met her, I would have hit her head with the stick and kill her”. That the accused turned around and saw pw1 and started exchanging words with pw1. That one lady tried to calm the accused down but she refused. Pw2 said as soon as the accused saw him the accused abandoned the stick and started walking away. Pw2 said he told the accused once she threatened to kill pw1, he will let pw1 report the matter to the police. Pw2 said the same day pw1 lodged a complaint with the police and the accused was invited but was released on bail. That as soon as the accused was released on bail, she walked to his (pw2) house with her (accused) with some three (3) boys who asked him (pw2) “what nonsense he was doing”. And that he (pw2) had the audacity to cause the arrest of their (boys) mother (accused). Pw2 said the boys then started beating him (pw2). That whiles two of them 3 used their hands, the other one used a stick. Pw2 said this was done in the presence of one Afena Moses (pw3). Then the following day he (pw2) reported the case to the police. He (pw2) was then given police medical form to attend hospital. The third prosecution witness, Moses Afena (pw3) said he lives at Asuano. That he knows pw1 and pw2 as well as the accused. That pw2 lives close to him (pw3) and they are a block away from pw1. Pw3 said on the 2nd day of March 2023 at about 10pm, he (pw3) was in the house when some three (3) boys two of whom being the sons of the accused came to their house. That at the time they came pw2 was seated on a bench and having a conversation with him (pw3). That the boys came with the accused. That when they came the accused then stood aside and the boys confronted pw2. That they asked pw2 why he helped pw1 to cause the arrest of the accused. Pw3 said the boys then pounced on pw2 right in his (pw3) presence and beat pw2 up. That the other occupants of the house then helped in rescuing pw2 from the boys. That the accused brought the boys and stood by whiles they beat up pw2. Closing the case for the prosecution, the fourth and final witness of the prosecution (pw4) was PW/Constable Vivian Tweneboah who investigated the case. She told the court on the 1st day of March 2023, pw1 reported a case of threat of death against the accused. Then on the 3rd of March 2023, pw2 also reported a case of abetment of assault against the same accused. She then took statements from the complainants and witnesses. The caution statement of the accused was admitted and marked ‘A’. The charge statement of the accused was also admitted and marked ‘B’. The medical report returned by pw2 was marked ‘C’. That police investigation revealed the accused had gone to the house of pw1 to threatened her (pw1) with death, when she told pw1 that “if I had met you in the room, I would have hit your head with the stick and kill you”. This led to the arrest of the 4 accused. Then after she was granted bail, accused led her sons to go and attack pw2 also in his house. After the prosecution closed their case, the court took the view that a case had been made out against the accused and she was called upon to open her defence. In her evidence in chief, the accused said she is Yeboah Vida and that she lives at Asuano and knows the prosecution witnesses. That the complainant fabricated the story on her. That she (accused) went to her late father’s land to farm. That whiles on the land raising yam mounds with labourers, complainant (pw1) came and asked who permitted her to farm on the land. That pw1 told her (accused) if she did not leave the land, she (pw1) will let people destroy the mounds. That pw1 insulted her (accused). Accused said she came from outside to her house and was given the summons. That pw2 destroyed her mounds and that he (pw2) and pw2 are now on the land. That pw1 is her (accused) step-mother and that she cannot fight her (pw1). That pw1 and pw2 are people she can never hurt. She does not understand why they will do this to her. Accused said she is innocent of the charges. The first witness for the accused (Dw1) was one Nana Domfeh Fosu-Gyeabour. That he lives at Koase and he knows the accused. Dw1 said when the incident happened he (dw1) was not present. That the accused is the step child of pw1. That he (dw1) heard of the matter and tried to find out but found that it is about family land. Dw1 said he tried to resolve the matter but failed. Dw2 was one Kate Aduah. She said she lives at Asuani. That she knows the accused. That the accused’s father had a farmland. Accused sent labourers to the land to raise yam mounds. Then a day after accused sent the labourers to the land, pw2 sent police to arrest the accused. That they then went and bailed the accused. 5 It is important to observe at this stage after having evaluated all the evidence that the prosecution has asserted and very forcefully that the accused went to the house of pw1 (first complainant) and threatened to hit the head of pw1 with a stick and kill her. This the prosecution contended was done in the presence of witnesses. This indeed was the evidence of pw1 herself Veronica Nfodwaa and which was corroborated by pw2, Kwadwo Simon who was also present at the time the accused went to the house of pw1. The accused though stated she cannot hurt pw1 and pw2, she never denied that she went to the house of pw1 where she issued the said threats of death. None of the two witnesses of the accused denied the assertion by the prosecution on the said death threats. The witnesses of the accused categorically stated that they were not present when the said incident happened in the house of pw1. Again it must be stated that the prosecution told the court that pw2 who is the son of pw1 and was a witness to the said death threats from the accused led pw1 to lodge a complaint with the police. This then culminated in the arrest of the accused by the police for investigations. That the accused was subsequently released on police enquiry bail. That the accused incensed about her arrest, went with two (2) of her sons and another boy to the house of pw2 and instructed the boys to beat up pw2. That the boys subjected pw2 to severe beatings until he (pw2) was rescued by pw3 and others. This was corroborated by pw3, Afena Moses when he told the court he was with pw2 conversing whiles pw2 sat on a bench. That the accused came with some three (3) boys, two (2) of whom he (pw3) identified as the sons of the accused. That the boys pounced on pw2 and beat him up whiles accused stood and watched. Pw3 said he and others then rescued pw2 from the attack. Again the accused never denied the fact that she went with the boys to the house of pw2 where pw2 was subjected to beatings upon her instructions. All three witnesses of the accused did not controvert the said evidence by the prosecution either. And clearly, the point having been made that pw2 led his 6 mother (pw1) to the police to lodge a complaint against the accused over her threats of death issued to pw1 means that the accused was not happy with pw2. This then explains why soon after her (accused) release on bail the accused mobilized her children to go and attack pw2. And it is important to state that the prosecution stated that when the accused and the boys got to pw2, the boys asked pw2 what nonsense he did and why he led pw1 to arrest the accused. So quiet obviously the attack of pw2 by the sons of accused was directly linked to the arrest of the accused because of her threats she sent to pw1. Finally, it is important and instructive to state that the evidence has established in very clear terms that the issue of the farmland led to the threat and the attack on pw1 and pw2 respectively by the accused and her sons. And be it as it may, this court is of the view that if the accused thinks she is equally entitle to portion of any land in the possession of pw1 who is her step-mother there are legal and amicable ways to deal with such issues. This clearly does not include the use of threats, intimidation and violence as those are unlawful. If efforts on the part of the accused to access the said land she claimed was gifted to her by her father failed, accused could have gone to court to seek a declaration to same but not to resort to the use of violence, intimidation and threats. From the evidence therefore, I found the following as facts. 1. That the accused is the step daughter of pw1 as pw1 was married to accused’s father before he died. 2. That pw2 is the son of pw1. 3. That accused tried to forcefully enter a farmland which pw1 and accused’s late father farmed on and which is now in the possession of pw1. 4. That pw1 and pw2 resisted the attempt by the accused to enter the land and that provoked the accused. 7 5. That accused went to the house of pw1 and threatened to hit her (pw1) head with a stick and kill her (pw1). 6. That pw2 who was present at the scene led pw1 to lodge a complaint against the accused and the accused was arrested. 7. That when released on bail by the police accused then led her boys (two of whom are her sons) to beat up pw2 in his house. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof in the sense of the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and failure on the part of the prosecution to discharge that must lead to the acquittal of the accused. See the case of Donkor Vs the State {1964} GLR, 281. On the standard burden of proof required the prosecution, this has been set out in section 11 (2) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) when it states that “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 the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt”. The offence of threat of death is created by section 75 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). To succeed in a charge of threat of death as per the provisions of section 75 of Act 29, the prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of the offence. These are that; a) The accused uttered the words complained about; b) That words constituted threat of death to wit “I would have hit your head with the stick and kill you”. c) That the said threats did put the complainant into an apparent fear of death. d) That the said threats are unlawful. 8 On the offence of Abetment of Assault contrary to sections 20 (1) and 84 of Act 29, the prosecution was required to show that the accused for the act of abetting the sons and the other boy all of whom are at large, the accused instigated, mobilised, encouraged, motivated, helped etc, the boys in the commission of the assault. In relating the evidence to the law as stated above, it is important to note that the prosecutions evidence has been incontrovertible on the fact that accused went to the house of pw1 over her disagreement with pw1 with respect to the land. And that whiles in the house of pw1, accused told pw1 she would have hit pw1’s head with the stick she (accused) went with and kill pw1. This was a complete threat of death by the accused and very unlawful. Again, it must stated also that following the said threat which happened in the presence of pw2 who is the son of pw1, pw2 led his mother (pw1) to lodge a criminal complaint against the accused and she was arrested. Here it ought to be noted that the accused upon her release on bail by the police organized her two (2) sons and another and went to the house of pw2 where the sons and the other boy mercilessly attacked pw2 whiles the accused stood and watch. This was again a clear case of abetment as the action of the accused in organizing the boys to beat pw2 was because she was not happy that pw2 led pw1 to lodge a complaint which led to her (accused) arrest by the police. From the evidence as adduced before this court and the law as stated above, it is my conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and against the accused. The accused, Vida Yeboah is thus found guilty on both counts and convicted accordingly. The reason for the above conclusion include; 9 1) That the accused who is the step daughter of pw1 is not happy that pw1 has taken possession of her late father’s farmland. 2) Accused tried to forcefully enter the said land but pw1 and her son (pw2) resisted same. 3) That accused got furious and went to the house of pw1 and threatened her (pw1) with death. 4) That pw2 who was present led his mother (pw1) to lodge complaint with the police leading to the arrest of the accused. 5) That accused upon her release on bail organized her sons and they went and beat up pw2 in his house. 6) That the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and as requires by law. Mitigation- on mitigation accused pleaded for leniency. Accused is sentenced to a fine of 80 penalty units on count one (1) or in default four (4) months imprisonment and to 60 penalty units on count two (2) or in default 2 months imprisonment. Sentences to run concurrently. …………SGD………….. ISSAH ABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) 10