Republic vrs Adu Sosu (D7/009/24) [2025] GHACC 94 (11 February 2025)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CASE NO.: D7/009/24 THE REPUBLIC VRS THOMAS ADU SOSU ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT INSPECTOR VIVIAN TAMEA GYABAAH HOLDING THE BRIEF OF ASP STEPHEN AHIALE FOR THE REPUBLIC PRESENT SAMMY LARYEA, ESQ. FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON ABSENT JUDGMENT THE CHARGES The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 1 of 13 The accused person herein was originally arraigned before this Court on the charges of Threat of Death contrary to section 75 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and Causing Unlawful Damage contrary to section 172 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). THE PLEA The accused person pleaded not guilty to both counts after the charges had been read and explained to him in the Twi language, being his language of choice. After the close of the case of the prosecution, the Court delivered a ruling on a submission of no case to answer as raised by the court suo motu, to the effect that a prima facie case had not been made by the prosecution to warrant the accused person to open his defence on count two; and the accused person was acquitted and discharged on count two. However, the court made a finding that the accused person has a case to answer on count one and he was called upon to enter into his defence on same, after the options available to him were explained to him. In view of the above, the trial continued in respect of the charge of Threat of Death on count one against the accused person; therefore, the instant judgment is in relation to count one. FACTS The brief facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that, the complainant in this case David Osei Blessen, resides at Israel in the Ga Central Municipal Assembly. On the 22/12/2023 at about 8:00am, complainant was washing his car in front of his house, when accused person passed by, pulled a knife and threatened to kill him, anytime he The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 2 of 13 sees him and also threatened to deal with him. Complainant asked him what has he done to him, accused person there pulled a knife again and used it to deflate complainant's car tyre and ended up causing damage to one of his tyre. Complainant formally reported the case and accused person was subsequently arrested. In his cautioned statement he admitted the offences and after investigations accused person was charged with the offences and brought before this honourable court. The prosecution called one witness in support of its case. EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS From the testimony of the first and only prosecution witness (PW1) who is also the complainant, he testified that his name is David Osei Blessen, a resident of Israel down- Accra. That he works as the general manager of Tycoons Multimedia Company located at Osu, Accra. He continued that on 22nd December 2023, he was washing his car in the morning at about 7:30am, in front of his house when he saw the accused person walking by. That the accused person started shouting and speaking in Twi language that the day they will catch him, he will see what they will do to him. That he asked the accused person whether he was talking to him and he said yes, he was referring to him. That he told the accused person he had already reported him to the Sowutuom police station, and the accused person retorted that, “and so what” and that because of him, he will go to jail. According to PW1, the accused person was so angry and he pulled out a knife from his pocket and started screaming that he will kill him that afternoon and that afternoon he will die. That he started walking away towards his house and the accused person used the knife he was holding to stab his car tyre. That he went to make a report at the police station and the accused was later arrested. He concluded that the accused person admitted to the police that he indeed stabbed his car tyre. The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 3 of 13 The investigator who was to be called as PW2 failed to appear before this court on four occasions when she was supposed to give her evidence. As a result of that the court closed the case of the prosecution and delivered a ruling that a prima facie case had been made out against the accused person on count one; and the accused person decided to give evidence on oath. EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSON In opening his defence, the accused person herein testified that his name is Thomas Adu Sosu, he is an electrician by profession and resides at Israel. That the complainant in this case is his friend; and they all reside in the same neighbourhood. He continued that sometime in December 2023, he had a misunderstanding with the complainant in his (accused person) house at Israel. That on that day, he was holding his working tools, including his knife that he uses in working; and in the course of his misunderstanding with the complainant, complainant pulled a hammer and attempted to use it to hit him. According to the accused person, he panicked and drew back; some onlookers came around and took him away. The accused person further testified that about three weeks later, the complainant brought police officers to his house and they arrested him. That he did not threaten the complainant. That the police refused to visit the scene and they also refused to come and obtain statements from those who were present before the misunderstanding occurred. That he is an electrician and he is always moving with his tools. The accused person concluded that it was a false allegation the complainant put on him and the police also failed to do investigation into the matter. The accused person called one witness as DW1. In his evidence, DW1 testified that his name is Zakari Jibril. That he is an Asafoatse at Nii Korle Bleshia palace at Israel. That somewhere in December 2023, he was with his Muslim brothers at Israel Down after they were done with dawn prayers and were hanging The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 4 of 13 around. That he saw that the complainant and the accused person were having a misunderstanding. That his Muslim brothers and him went closer to them and tried to calm the situation down between the two. That he saw that the complainant pulled a hammer and threatened to hurt the accused person. That he and his Muslim brothers shielded the accused person and made him leave the scene. That he later informed his chief, Nii Korle Bleshia II and he invited both the complainant and the accused person, but it was only the accused person and his father who came to the chief. The accused person closed his defence thereafter. LEGAL ISSUE The legal issue to be determined by this Court is whether or not the accused person herein did threaten the complainant herein with knife with intent to put the complainant into fear of death. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF The general principle of law in every criminal case as provided under section 11(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) is 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 all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt” In the case of Asare v The Republic [1978] GLR 193 – 199, per Anin J. A. reading the Court of Appeal decision is that: “There was no burden on the accused to establish his innocence, rather it was the prosecution that was required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.” The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 5 of 13 The learned judge continued to state that: “The accused is presumed innocent until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt; that the burden is rather on the prosecution to prove the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt…. The judge or magistrate must on a consideration of the whole evidence, be satisfied of the guilt of the accused before he may convict” From the above, the prosecution bears the burden to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See also: sections 13(1) and 15 of the Evidence Act, 1975, (NRCD 323). In the case of Commissioner of Police v. Isaac Antwi [1961] GLR 408-412, it was held that the accused person is not required to prove anything. All that is required of him is to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. This is further emphasized by sections 11(3) and 13(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). The burden on the accused person, when called upon to enter his defence, is to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. The standard of proof for the defence is proof on a balance of probabilities. See the case of Osae v. The Republic [1980] GLR 446 ANALYSIS Section 75 of Act 29, on threat of death is as follows: “Whoever threatens any other person with death, with intent to put that person in fear of death, is guilty of a second degree felony.” The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 6 of 13 From the above provision, the ingredients of the offence of threat of death are (a) threatening another person, (b) with death, (c) with the intention of putting that person in fear of death. In other words, as stated by Osei-Hwere J (as he then was) in the case of Behome v. The Republic [1979] GLR 112 “In the offence of threat of death, the actus reus will consist in the expectation of death which the offender creates in the mind of the person he threatens whilst the mens rea will also consist in the realization by the offender that his threats will produce that expectation. It matters not, therefore, whether the threats were related to the present or to the future. A person cannot intend to put another person in fear of death… if there is no evidence that he threatened that other person with death” The learned judge went on to state that where one is charged with threat of death; the threat must be of death and not of harm. From the evidence on record, PW1 testified that the accused person pulled a knife at him and threatened him that he will kill him that afternoon and that, he will die that afternoon. The accused person in cross examining PW1 asked PW1 who is also the complainant what had prompted him to pull out the knife. For the avoidance of doubt, I reproduce the cross examination of PW1 by the accused person on 8th April 2024 as follows: “Q: When I met you, was I holding knife? The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 7 of 13 A: You had a knife in your pocket so you pulled it out and approached me that you will kill me. Q: Did I just pull the knife when I first saw you, what happened because you were also holding a hammer. A: I was not holding any hammer. You just hate me naturally because you broke my head and the case is at Sowutuom Court. Q: Was I standing at the store buying something when you came to meet me or you were there and I went to meet you. A: I was washing my car when you passed by, there is a store opposite where I was but I did not enter there.” [Emphasis provided]” Clearly the question by the accused person to PW1 under cross examination, as to whether he just pulled the knife when he first saw PW1 or something happened because PW1 was also holding a hammer, is an implied admission by the accused that he pulled the knife however, it was due to the complainant also pulling a hammer. That is not a denial of the allegation by the complainant that the accused person pulled a knife at him. Therefore, from the cross examination of the complainant by the accused person and the said question the accused asked in cross examination, this court is of the opinion that the complainant’s allegation that the accused person pulled a knife at him stood undenied. However, the accused person in his defence testified that he did not threaten the complainant and that he always walks around with his tools including knife, as an The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 8 of 13 electrician. That it was the complainant who pulled a hammer and attempted to hit him with it in the course of their misunderstanding but the onlookers around came to take him away. He called DW1 who confirmed in his testimony that he saw the complainant pull a hammer and threatened to hurt the accused person; and they made the accused person leave the scene. The accused person is on record to have asked the complainant if he just pulled the knife on him or it is because the complainant attempted to hit him with a hammer. Therefore, the accused person’s denial in his defence that the did not threaten the complainant cannot be accepted by the court as same is regarded as an afterthought. Even if the accused person always moves around with a knife on him as an electrician as he testified under cross examination, that does not warrant him to be pulling the said knife on people he has issues or misunderstanding with. From the evidence of DW1, he saw that the complainant and the accused person were having a misunderstanding; so, he and his Muslim brothers went closer to them and tried to calm down the situation between the two. That he saw that the complainant pulled a hammer and threatened to hurt the accused person. So, they shielded the accused person and made him leave the scene. I have no cause to doubt the testimony of DW1 to the effect that he saw the complainant pull a hammer and threatened to hurt the accused, as the evidence on record does not suggest that DW1 has an interest in the instant case. Notwithstanding the corroboration of the accused person’s defence by DW1 that the complainant pulled a hammer and attempted to use it to hit the accused person or threatened to hurt the accused person as testified by DW1, that cannot be a legal defence because it is trite learning that provocation is only a defence to the offence of murder; and also, self defence is not a defence to the offence of threat of death. The accused person The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 9 of 13 ought to have lodged a complaint at the police station when he felt threatened by the complainant and not to put the law in his own hands. From the entire evidence on record, it can be gathered that both the accused person and the complainant threatened each other but the prosecution failed to investigate the allegations of the accused person that the complainant first pulled a hammer on him. Below is the relevant portion of the cross examination of the accused person by the prosecutor on 4th December 2024 on the accused person’s claim that the police refused to visit the scene and they also refused to obtain statements from those who were present before the misunderstanding occurred. “Q: You also claim that police did not visit the scene of the incident, do you stand by that? A: That is so. Q: Did you offer to take the police to the scene of the incident? A: Yes, but they did not do so. Q: I suggest to you that the police if at all they did not visit the scene it was because you did not offer to take them to the scene. A: That is not so.” The reasonable question to be asked from the above cross examination by the prosecution, is, must the accused be the one to offer the police to take them to the scene? The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 10 of 13 Or as an investigator, she should have demanded or requested that as part of her investigation, the accused person must take her to the crime scene? The prosecutor’s suggestion that if the police did not visit the scene, it was because the accused person did not offer to take them to the scene is highly unacceptable because the decision by the investigator as to whether she should visit the crime scene or not, does not lie with the accused person. The accused person does not decide for the investigator how she should conduct her investigation. Rather any diligent and dedicated investigator would make it a must to visit the crime scene either through the complainant or the accused person, since the crime scene could have been visited through the complainant as well. Unfortunately, the investigator failed to conduct a thorough investigation in the instant case and this same investigator also failed to appear before this court to testify even after the court adjourned the hearing on three or more occasions at the instance of the prosecution to enable the said investigator attend court to testify. However, the fact that the prosecution failed to conduct a thorough investigation in the entire case does not exonerate the accused person from his action of threatening the complainant with a knife but may mitigate the consequences of his actions. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, I find that the accused person actually threatened the complainant with a knife that he will kill him. This is because it is not in doubt from the evidence that the accused person threatened the complainant with a knife as he himself asked the complainant under cross examination what happened before he pulled the knife at him. The defence of the accused person is that the complainant pulled a hammer and attempted to hit him with it which has been substantiated by the testimony of DW1. However as explained supra that cannot be a legal defence to the offence of threat of death therefore the accused person should have reported the complainant to the The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 11 of 13 police for threatening to hit him with a hammer instead of him also threatening the complainant with a knife that he will kill him. CONCLUSION Crabbe J.S.C. in the case of The State v. Sowah and Essel [1961] GLR 743 – 747, S.C. held that: “A judge must be satisfied of the guilt of the crimes alleged against an accused person only on consideration of the whole evidence adduced in the case; and only then can he convict”. On the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial, I am satisfied of the guilt of the accused person as I find from the evidence on record that the accused person indeed threatened the complainant of death by pulling a knife at him. In the circumstances, I hereby find the accused person herein guilty of the offence of threat of death. Consequently, I hereby convict the accused person of the offence of threat of death. Pre-Sentencing hearing Court: Any plea in mitigation before sentence is passed? Accused: I plead with the court to be lenient with me because I did not know I had to go to the police station to report and I also did not know my actions were against the law. This is my first time I am appearing before a court and I have a child who is in school at the moment and I am the one taking care of that child. I also have a sick mother that I am taking care of. Court: Is the accused person known to the police? The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 12 of 13 Prosecutor: He is not known to us. SENTENCING In sentencing the accused person, the court takes into consideration the fact that he is a first-time offender as well as his youthful age. The court has also considered the plea in mitigation of the accused person. In accordance with Article 14(6) of the 1992 Constitution, time spent in custody by the accused person before he fulfilled his bail conditions is also considered by the court. The court has further considered the entire evidence on record to the effect that the complainant played a part in the whole melee. However, to serve as a deterrent to the accused person and others in the jurisdiction that, one cannot and must not take the law into their own hands, I consequently sentence the accused person to pay a fine of five hundred (500) penalty units. In default of the fine, the accused person shall serve a term of imprisonment of two (2) years in hard labour. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) The Republic v. Thomas Adu Sosu Page 13 of 13