Mpalu v The Republic (BE/TN/HC/F15/08/2025) [2025] GHAHC 201 (13 May 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT TECHIMAN IN THE BONO EAST REGION ON FRIDAY THE 13th DAY OF MAY2025BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICEKWAME GYAMFIOSEI CASE NOBE/TN/HC/F15/08/2025 MPALUBIASMI NJA @NTEKPEL INMATESUNYANI PRISONS SUNYANI :APPELLANT VRS THEREPUBLIC :RESPONDENT ========================================================================== JUDGMENT The Appellant was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Techiman for defiling a five year old child. He pleaded guilty simpliciter and was duly convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to 15 years I.H.L. The facts presented by the Prosecution was that 1 on the 6th of February 2022 at about 10am the Appellant who is the Landlord of the victim’s parents was alone with the victim in the house. The Appellant took advantage of the absence of the victim’s parents and defiled her. After the act he gave the victim GHC 2.00. When the father of the victim came to the house he noticed some changes in the movement of the victim and questioned her. She then narrated her ordeal to the father. A report was made to the police leading to the arrest of the Appellant. A medical report form was issued for the victim medical examination. The report confirmed that the victim had been known sexually known. The Appellant has appealed to this court and the sole ground is that “ the sentence was harsh and excessive having regard to the circumstances” Arguing the appeal counsel for the Appellant submitted that the sentence was lawful as same was within the 7 to 25 years custodial sentence stipulated by the law. He however said that having regard to the age of the Appellant coupled with his health condition this court should tamper justice with mercy and reduced the sentence as the appellant showed remorse by admitting the offence thereby not delaying the time of the court. He said the Appellant has learnt his lessons and would not commit any such offence or a criminal offence if the sentence is reduced and he get the chance to see the world again. According to counsel his punishment has sent the right signals to would- be offenders hence the deterrent purpose of punishment has been achieved. Counsel concluded by 2 saying that if this appeal is not upheld he prays the court not to increase the sentence. Counselreferenced the case ofODONKOR vrsTHE REPUBLIC [1967]GLR 690. The punishment for the offence of defilement is a custodial sentence from 7 years to 25 years. Section 101 (2) of the Criminal Offences Act 1969 [ACT 29/60] fix the punishment asfollows; “ (2) Whoever naturally or unnaturally carnally knows any child under sixteen years of age, whether with or without his or her consent commits an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than sevenyearsand notmorethan twenty-five years.” As rightly conceded by Counsel for the Appellant sentencing is at the discretion of the judge hence unless it could be shown that the discretion was exercised wrongfully whether on matters of fact or law the appellate court has no business disturbing the exercise ofthat discretion by thetrial judge. In this case the victim is a child of only 5 years. The Appellant did not commit the offence on the spur of the moment . He planned it and executed same. Having regard to the age of the victim I do not think that the 15 years sentence is excessive. Grave offence calls for severer punishment. See the case of APALOO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC[1975] 1GLR156 3 In the case of Kamil v Republic,[Unreported, Criminal Appeal No. J3/3/2009 dated 8th December 2010] the Supreme Court, speaking through Ansah JSC stated in relation to theharshness or otherwise ofasentence asfollows:- “Where an appellant complains about the harshness of a sentence he ought to appreciate that every sentence is supposed to serve a five-fold purpose, namely tobe punitive,calculated to deter others,to reform the offender,to appease the societyand tobe asafeguard tothis country In my view the sentence of 15 years was even fair to the Appellant having regard to the age of the child and it would be unjust to reduce the sentence. The appeal fails and same is accordinglydismissed. (SGD) KWAME GYAMFIOSEI JUSTICEOF THE HIGH COURT TECHIMAN DEREK ASANTE OBENGESQ. FOR RESPONDENT BRIGHTTABIRI ESQ. FOR THE APPELLANT 4