Salifu v The Republic (CC16/040/2024) [2025] GHAHC 187 (20 February 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, SITTING AT SUNYANI, COURT ‘2’ ON THURSDAY THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE WINNIE AMOATEY-OWUSU, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT CASE NO: CC16/040/2024 IDDRISU SALIFU APPELLANT VRS. THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGMENT On 19th April 2024, the Appellant was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Techiman on one count of stealing contrary to Section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). He pleaded guilty and was convicted on his own plea and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Aggrieved by the sentence, he filed this Petition of Appeal on 16th August 2024 pursuant to leave granted on 13th August 2024 by this Court, differently constituted. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentence is harsh and excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case. He therefore seeks a reduction of the sentence. Page 1 of 6 A summary of the prosecution’s facts as contained in the Petition of Appeal is that on 17th April 2024, the Appellant, a driver and resident of Goaso in the Ahafo Region, went to the Ankosei Hotel located at Onyinase/Techiman at about 1130 hours and booked two rooms, each fixed with a “32” inch TCL flat screen television. He made a cash deposit of GH¢100 with the receptionist and told the receptionist his boss who is also a driver would be coming from Burkina Faso to settle the remaining GH¢200. Few minutes later, the security guard at the hotel spotted the Appellant leaving the hotel premises with some items wrapped in a black polythene bag. Since the Appellant did not enter the hotel with any luggage, the security guard became suspicious of him and pursued him when he had gone halfway. A search conducted on the Appellant disclosed the aforementioned television sets concealed in the black polythene bag and the same were identified by Osei Asibe Aning, CEO of the hotel and complainant, as his property. The Appellant was arrested and handed over to the Techiman Police together with the retrieved stolen items for investigation. In his cautioned statement, the Appellant admitted stealing the television sets from the hotel. After investigations, he was charged and arraigned before the trial court. It is provided in Article 19(2) (c) of the 1992 Constitution that an accused is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty or he pleads guilty. Where an accused pleads not guilty to the charge, the burden rests with the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Page 2 of 6 The law is also settled that an appeal is by way of rehearing. See Amankwah v. The Republic (J3/04/2019) (2021) GHASC 27 dated 21st July 2021 (unreported). Be that the Appellant was convicted on his own plea and despite him attacking only the sentence in this appeal, it is my foremost duty to evaluate the entire evidence on record to determine based on the facts and law, if the prosecution’s facts support the charge, and if found that the facts support the charge, then I shall proceed to consider the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. Per the Particulars of Offence, the Appellant is said to have, on 17th April 2024, at New Onyinase/Techiman in the Bono East Region, dishonestly appropriated two “32” inch TCL flat screen television sets valued GH¢5,000, the property of Osei Asibe Aning. To successfully prove the charge of stealing as created under Section 124 of Act 29, the prosecution must lead sufficient evidence to prove that: i. The Appellant appropriated a thing; ii. The appropriation was dishonest; and iii. The Appellant is not the owner of the thing appropriated. Upon consideration of the prosecution’s facts presented before the trial court as contained in the Charge Sheet, I am satisfied the said facts support the charge and that the trial judge’s conviction of the Appellant on his own guilty plea cannot be faulted. Page 3 of 6 In arriving at a decision whether or not the two-year imprisonment sentence imposed on the Appellant by the trial court is harsh and excessive, I have given thoughtful consideration to the written submissions of both counsel. It is trite learning that the judge’s duty to pass sentence following a conviction involves the exercise of discretion. This discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously. The discretion must be exercised within the remit of the law and as dictated by the circumstances of the particular case under consideration. In Nana Yaw Owusu v. The Republic [2020] Suit no. H2/11/16 dated 16th July 2020 (unreported), the Court of Appeal stated, “Beyond this, sentencing is an exercise of discretion by a trial Judge and as long as the Judge has kept within the confines of what the law prescribes and has also considered the necessary aggravating and mitigating factors before passing the sentence, an appellate court, even if it would have imposed a different sentence must be slow to substitute its own with that of the trial Judge.” See also Samuel Agoe Mills Robertson v. The Republic (Criminal Appeal No. J3/4/2014) dated 28th May 2014 (unreported). From the record of the proceedings of 19th April 2024, specifically, the pre- sentencing hearing contained in the Petition of Appeal, I believe that apart from the Appellant’s expression of remorse, the trial judge considered the fact that the Appellant was a first offender, the fact that the Appellant pleaded guilty on his first appearance and did not waste the court’s time to Page 4 of 6 conduct a full trial to determine his guilt and the retrieval of the stolen items as mitigating factors, as well as the aggravating factors of his age, the rising incidents of stealing within the court’s jurisdiction which needed to be curbed and the level of premeditation involved in the Appellant’s execution of the theft, before imposing the two-year imprisonment sentence on the Appellant. I must state that the punishment for stealing is not fixed by law and the court has the discretion to impose a fine or imprisonment up to 25 years, or both. See Section 296(5) and 297(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30). On the above considerations and since every sentence imposed is supposed to serve a five-fold purpose, namely: to be punitive, to deter others, to reform the offender, to appease the society and to safeguard the country, I am of the considered view that the two-year imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court is neither harsh nor excessive. The appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. SGD. WINNIE AMOATEY-OWUSU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT Page 5 of 6 APPELLANT PRESENT COUNSEL: 1. ALBERT ZOOGAH ESQ. FOR THE APPELLANT ABSENT 2. VIVIAN YAYRA NTI-BOADU (SA) WITH ROSE ANARFO (ASA) FOR THE RESPONDENT Page 6 of 6