The Republic v Kpokabio (CC2/00/24) [2025] GHAHC 166 (4 April 2025)

1|Page INTHESUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, HIGHCOURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIALDIVISION ‘’A’’ HELDATSUNYANI ONFRIDAY THE4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025BEFOREHIS LORDSHIP JUSTICEHARRY ACHEAMPONG- OPOKU ESQ. SUITNO.CC2/00/24 THEREPUBLIC VRS. FRANCIS KPOKABIO SUMMING-UP NOTES Gentlemen and ladies of the jury, we have come to the end of the evidence and addresses by counsel. It is now my duty to sum up to you by drawing your attention to evidence you have so far heard, the law involve and its application to evidence you have so far heard. I remind you of your charge and duties explained to you earlier on. As judges of facts, you should consider yourselves free from the comments or observations. 2|Page If any made by me in the course of summing up in that you are not bound by them thoughI amwithin my rightstomake suchobservations. Your verdict must be upon your own considerations of the evidence heard in this court and the direction given on the law involved. And that I did not have to tell you what decision to take you are therefore to disregard whatever, you might have heard outside, yourverdict also must be majority, this being amurder trial. The general accepted principle of law in criminal trials is that the prosecution must discharge the burden of proving the Accused guilty of the charge to your satisfaction, and must not leave you in any reasonable doubt at all in other words the burden is cast onthe prosecution requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. There are however, certain exceptions to this principle that the burden of proof of the guilty of the Accused rests on the prosecution. I will not bother you with these exceptions because the present does not fall within the class of any such exceptions so that before you come to the end of your deliberations youmust feel completely satisfied with the case for the prosecution that unanswered by the Accused, you could convict himupon it, otherwise the verdict should be notguilty. If upon consideration of the entire evidence you entertain some reasonable doubt as to the Accused’s guilt, your verdict should also be not guilty. Quite apart from this you are toconsider the storyof the defence; if youaccept that story thenyourverdict should 3|Page be that of not guilty. Even if you do not consider the defence as true, you must go further to consider whether it is reasonably probable and if your observation lead you to that conclusion your verdict must be that of not guilty. You must only convict when onconsideration of the case as a whole you are not in reasonable doubt as to the guilt of theAccused. There is no burden on the Accused to prove his innocence and before you consider the defence you must first be satisfied the prosecution has succeeded in taking their case outside the ambit of speculation and conjecture it will be wrong to ask yourselves if the Accused did not do it then who did it? It is for the prosecution to prove that the Accused caused the harmcomplained of. The charge preferred against the Accused is the murder of one Lydia Mane, who until the incident leading toher deathwas the wife ofthe Accused. The offence is contraryto section 46 of Act 29 as amended by Act 1101 of 2023. I will now deal with the law concerning the material elements of the offence that is what act or acts on the part of the Accused person the prosecution must prove to have been done by him in order to constitute theoffence ofwhich he has beencharged. In order to succeed the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the followings; (a) That this personLydia Mane is dead. 4|Page (b) That herdeathwas caused by harm. (c) That theharm wasunlawful (d)That it was caused intentionally. (e) That it was caused by the act ofthe Accused (f) That there was not extreme provocation or circumstances of absolute execuse or justification. Penalty for murder under section 46 of Act 29 as amended by Act 1101 of 2023 states as follows; Under section 46 “A person who commits murder is liable on conviction to life imprisonment”. Definitionofmurder section47ofAct29as amended statesas follows; “whoever Intentionally causes the death of another person by any unlawful harm is guilty of murder unless his or her crime is reduced to manslaughter by reason of such extreme provocation or other matter of partial excused, as mentioned in section 52 look atsection 52”. Section52is read tothe jurors. In respect of intentions read section 11 and it subsections and explain by looking at the illustrations asprovided by the Act29. Perhaps our immediate concern is with section 11 (1) of Act 29 as amended Unlawful harm–section76ofAct29as amended defineswhat unlawfulharmis; 5|Page “Harm is unlawful which is intentionally or negligently caused without any justificationmentioned in chapter 1 ofthis part”. Section12ofAct 29asamended statesthat; “A person causes and event negligently if without intending to cause the event, he causes it by voluntary act done without such skill and care as are reasonably necessary under circumstances”. Circumstances of partial Excuse – The offence of murder might be reduced to manslaughter in certain circumstances as set out in sections 52, 53, and 54 of Act 29 as amended (Read and explain). But in this case the question of provocation reducing the offence to one of manslaughter cannot arise since the accused person’s defence is a total denialofthe offence. Circumstances of absolute Excuse or Justification – Sections 30, 31 and 37 of Act 29 as amended (read)Again this defence doesnot arise fromthesame reasonasgivenabove. Now there is no doubt that the person – Lydia Mane is dead and that she died on 29th June, 2019 after receiving a cut on the throat face and the writ, As to that there is Medical Report by the Doctor who performed autopsy or post mortem on the body of the deceased according to Dr. Isaac Siaw-Lartey who performed the post-mortem of the bodyofthe deceased in hispost-mortem Reportas tothe cause ofdeathas follows; 1(a)Hemorrhagic shock 6|Page (b) Multiple sharpedgedlaceration oftheface and neck. 2. Suspected assault and concluded his Report that the manner of death is unnatural, thereport wasdated 4th July, 2020. That therefore her death was caused by harm is also not in dispute that the harm was unlawful was also not in dispute as this does not fall under any of the sections referred toand read toyouas justifying orexcusing aharminflicted onanotherperson. That it was caused intentionally is one which is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case and especially as everyman is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his act until the contraryis proved. The great question which you have been called upon to determine is this who killed Lydia Mane. The fact ofthe prosecution case was that; The complainant in this case one Nana Takyi of Faaman Traditional Council aged 47 years, a farmer, resident and the native of Faaman whereas the suspect Francis Kpokabio a farmer labourer and native of Nakpanduri in the North-East Region of Ghana and resident of Faaman. Suspect was married to the deceased with two children. Deceased had series of calls which offended the suspect. A misunderstanding ensued between the deceased and the suspect as a result of the calls. Deceased pack her things and left the House for her home town. The suspect convinced her to return to him. On 7|Page the 29th day of June, 2020 deceased asked the suspect to send her money for transportation to enable her come back home. He sent it and she also returned to him when she arrived the suspect asked her to accompany him to the farm. In the farm the suspect questioned the deceased about the series of calls and why she was cheating on him the accused. This resulted in a misunderstanding between them. The suspect (Accused) pulled his cutlass and cut the deceased person’s throat and parts of her body. He then dragged deceased and hid her in the nearby bush. He run home with blood all over his body and hid the cutlass and his soaked dress with blood stain in an abandoned refrigerator. He then picked her personal belongings sent them to the bush and placed them besides her body. Information got to the community and they went to the bush in search of the suspect (Accused) but he had then managed to escape to Boadwo, a suburb of Faaman. Later he was arrested and handed over to the police at Drobo. Giving his cautioned statement, he admitted the offence. Later police went to the scene and found deceased lying in a pool of blood in postrate position with cutlass wounds on her throat and other parts of the body photographs were taken. The body was then removed and deposited at the morgue at Saint Mary’s Hospital Drobo for preservation and autopsy. Insupportofthis theprosecution called one witness the investigatorinthe case. 8|Page Before I proceed further I need to remind the jurors that they are the judges of fact and not law, the judges of law is the trial judge who has to direct the jurors on the issues of law and also it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt andnotshadow ofdoubt. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury the prosecution witness as indicated earlier was the only witness for the prosecution and also police investigator in the case thus PW1 in the case. EVIDENCE OF THE WITNESS, PW1 Inhis evidence in thecase, the prosecutionwitness stated asfollows; That he was police Dectative station at Drobo police station when a case of murder was reported to him by one Kwadwo Takyi who in fact brought the Accused person to the station claiming thatthe Accused Person hadmurdered his wife Lydia Mane at Boadwo nearFaamanwithin the DroboPolice jurisdiction. According to PW1 whilst at the station on duty a murder case was referred to him for investigation. That the complainant Kwadwo Takyi arrested and brought to the station accused personFrancis Kpokabio forkilling his wife Lydia Maneat Boadwo a suburbof Faaman in the Jaman South municipality Drobo on receipt of the news accompanied by the complainant proceeded to Boadwo and being led by the complainant proceeded to the crime scene in the nearby bush at Boadwo where the deceased was found in a pool 9|Page of blood covered with leaves a travelling bag was also found beside her, photographs were taken. Photograph taken at the scene were shown to the witness, who identifies the crime scene picture the said crime scene picture was tendered by the prosecution through the witness and was admitted in evidence without any objection by the defence and marked as exhibit ‘A’. On the inspection of the body police saw a cut on the throat of the deceased and her face and then on the right wrist of the deceased. After inspection photographs were taken, the crime scene was combed nothing, incriminating was found the body was removed and sent to Saint Mary’s Hospital Morgue at Drobo for preservation and autopsy. Complainant led police upon tip-off, to the accused place of abode at Faaman where a machete was found in an abandoned refrigerator on Accused veranda. The machete was removed and photographs taken to that effect witness identified the photograph of the machete found in the Accused place. The said photograph of the machete was tendered in evidence by the prosecution through the witness without any objectionfromthe defence and marked as exhibit ‘B’. According to the witness he retrieved the said machete from the Accused house. The said machete is also tendered in evidence by the prosecution without objection was marked as exhibit ‘C’ witness further states that the accused suffered some degree of injuries as a result of an attack or beatings he received from the members of the community and was sent to Saint Mary’sHospitalfortreatment by the police. 10|Page According to the witness accused was charged with the offence of murder that his initial caution statement was taken without independent witness on 30th of June, 2020. That since accused caution statement was given without independent witness, he was later instructed by the Attorney General Office to retake the caution statement in the presence of the independent witness. An attempt by the prosecution to tender the said caution statement was objected to by the Defence counsel, which objection was up held by this Honourable Court. And markedasexhibit ‘R1’. Furthermore, according to the witness on the 30th of June, 2020 at about 12:30am whilst investigation caution statement was being obtained, Accused phone rang and that it was deceased sister who was on line and told the police that the deceased was going to see the Accused. The police broke the news to the sister that the deceased had been murdered by the Accused. According to the witness the sister informed him that the accused had asked the deceased to come to Boadwo a request the deceased obeyed. And that the deceased left Accra on 29th day of June, 2020 at about 8am deceased left Accra for Boadwo. On 30th June, 2020 at about 2:30pm deceased sister and two brothers came to Drobo from Accra and that the deceased sister pointed Accused Person to the police as the deceased husband. And that the post mortem examination was performed onthe deceased body by Dr. Siaw-LarteyofOkomfo AnokyeTeaching HospitalKumasi in the presence of the deceased brother and the Doctor accordingly gave his Report of the cause of death. That he took the pictures of the body of the deceased before and 11|Page after the post-mortem. Although in tendering the said pictures in evidence, the Defence sought to object to it tendering, but the court overruled the said objection and said pictures were tendered in evidence by the prosecution and marked as exhibit ‘D series’. That after the post-mortem the body was released to the family for burial. That a duplicate case docket was prepared and sent to the Attorney General’s Office for advice. That he was advised to charge the Accused Person with the offence of murder. Although at this point the prosecution had wanted to tender the said charge statement taken from the Accused, which is a confession statement in evidence but was vehemently opposed by the counsel for the Accused who stated that the said statement was not voluntarily given by the Accused and furthermore that statement was not the deed of the Accused. However, after going through mini-trial or voire dire the said confession statement was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit ‘E’ and therefore Defence objection was overruled. After this the witness end his evidence in chief and waslater cross-examined by the Defence orAccused counsel. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, from the evidence onrecord it is clear that there is no direct link between the accused and the offence of murder that is nobody saw the Accused murdering the deceased. Also the Accused is not scientifically linked to the said offence of murder in that, no finger print was taken in respect of the said machete to show that it was the Accused who used it to murder the deceased especially when accused has denied ownership of the said machete. Furthermore no forensic 12|Page examination was conducted on the machete to find out that the blood found on the machete was that of the deceased Lydia Mane, finally the Doctor’s Report although confirmed that, the deceased was murdered, it did notlinked the Accused to the offence. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, you must also be mindful that, prosecution called only one witness that is the investigator, however the prosecution failed to call the medical Doctor who performed the post-mortem Report on the deceased. And also complainant, nevertheless of these, ladies and gentlemen of the jury you must be aware of exhibit ‘E’ a confession statement of the Accused who voluntarily admitted that he murdered the deceased, it must be noted that this confession statement made by the Accused was made at thetime the incident wasfresh in his mind. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury the law is that confession statement on it own can grant conviction because it is evidence coming from the Accused, the question is which evidence isbetterthanthe one coming fromtheaccused ownmouth. Nevertheless, the weight tobe givento such aconfession statementdepends onyou. Accused in his evidence stated that he was a farmer living at Faaman prior to his arrest, that the deceased was his wife and they had lived as a husband and wife for 7 years prior to the incident and that he had two children with the deceased that there has never been any dispute and hostilities between them. In fact accused totally denied the said offence. According to the Accused, his wife the deceased was at Kumasi, on 13|Page Monday she called him that she would come to him on Monday. The deceased therefore came to spend six days in his place, at the end of six days the deceased told him that she was going back to Kumasi, he therefore gave deceased money to returned to Kumasi whilst he the Accused was on the farm the deceased called him that she had had a vehicle and that she was her way to Kumasi, that she left his place on Sunday to Kumasi. That on Monday at 4:30pm he was arrested by the town folks of Faaman for killing his wife, he told them that it was not true, because his wife had travelled to Kumasi and therefore asked them at what time did he kill her. They sent him to Drobo police station, where the police severally beat him and put him in police cell. That after police had beaten him they sent him to Saint Mary’s Hospital for treatment. The following day the police took my statement from me, however, before they took the statement from me, I was handcuffed the police C.I.D asked me whether, I have been to school and also asked whether I have been arrested by the police before I said no. He toldme that he was coming to take my statement to send me to court. He told me that I had killed my wife. I told him that I knew nothing about it one of the police officer told me that since I have never been to school before he should write what ever, he will, whilst writing he told me that he was writing my statement. After writing the following morning he came to give me paper and asked me to wear my dress, because we were going to court. He told me that when I got to court I should plead guilty. I then asked him what the meaning of guilty plea is, he told me that if I plead guilty the 14|Page judge would discharge me. That I knew nothing about, although since I was finding it difficult to say it in twi language I was rehearsing it whilst on our way to the court, when we got to the court, I became frightening and I forgot it. I therefore called him to inform him that I had forgotten what he told me about my plea he told me that when I am called I should plead guilty. When I went into the box, when the Magistrate asked me, whether I am guilty or not, I responded that I was guilty. However, the Magistrate told me that I was not guilty and therefore asked them to send me to remand for one month. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it is clear that the Accused evidence in court is contrary to the statement that he made in the confession statement, the question is if indeed the deceased left for Kumasi, how come that he did not tell the police and that if indeed the deceased called him, whilst onher way toKumasi, how come that he did not show the police the number the deceased used to call him. It is also of interest to note that exhibit ‘1’ tendered by the Defence through the PW1 that is the statement of the complainant Kwadwo Takyi which indicated that the Accused told him that he accused has killed his wife the deceased, which is in consonance with his confession statement. In any case this is an accused who told the court that he was beating by the police nevertheless when he was asked question to that effect, by the prosecution he rather answered that it was the townfolks who assaulted him, but rather it was the police who 15|Page took him to the Hospital for treatment. Accused after given evidence also never called any witness. To me the Accused evidence in court is not truthful nevertheless, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it is your duty to consider the whole of the evidence in the case (the prosecution and the defence put together) if you find out that the story of the Accused is not reasonably probable in other words if you find it difficult to accept the accused story as to what happened then you must return verdict of guilty in other hand if you find the prosecution story in any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused person youmust returnverdict ofnotguilty. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury you may now retire to consider your verdict you are entitled to come back for further directions if you so desire. Your verdict must be by majority. 16|Page INTHESUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, HIGHCOURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIALDIVISION ‘’A’’ HELDATSUNYANI ONFRIDAY THE4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025BEFOREHIS LORDSHIP JUSTICEHARRY ACHEAMPONG- OPOKU ESQ. SUITNO.CC2/00/24 THEREPUBLIC VRS. FRANCIS KPOKABIO JUDGEMENT Summing upstarted at10:15am and ended at11:15am 11:16amjurorsretirefor deliberationsto returntheir verdict 11:46amjurorsreturned fromtheir deliberations toannounce their verdict. ForemanCharlesNyarko–Mylord, we were unanimous inour verdict thatthe accused isguilty onthe offence (Murder). 17|Page BYCOURT: MR. FRANCIS KPOKABIOin viewofthe return ofthe guilty verdict by the jurorsin respect ofthe offence charged againstyou thatis murder. I accordingly convictyou onthe offence ofmurder and sentence you to Life imprisonment tobe served atAnkafoMaximum Security Prisons where you would spend the rest ofyour life. May God protectand keep you safe for the rest ofyourlife . ………………………… JUSTICEHARRY ACHEAMPONG-OPOKU (JUSTICEOF THE HIGHCOURT)