The Republic v Takyi and Another (19/2024) [2024] GHACC 428 (17 October 2024)

INTHECIRCUIT COURT HELDATKINTAMPOON WEDSDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024,BEFOREHER HONOUR LILYAMOAH-KANKAM ESQ, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. CASE NO: 19/2024 THEREPUBLIC VRS 1. YAWTAKYI 2. ANTHONY EFFAHASABIRI TIME: 8:38AM A1 PRESENT A2 PRESENT COMPLAINANT ABSENT C/INSP. JOHN MENSAHFORTHE REPUBLIC PRESENT ACCUSEDPERSONS ARE NOT REPRESENTED 1 JUDGMENT The Accused persons have been charged with Conspiracy to commit crime contrary to Section 23(1) of Act 29 and causing unlawful damage contrary to Section 172(1b) of the criminal offences Act 1960, (Act 29). They were arrainged before the court on 7/11/23. The Accused persons pleaded not guilty to both charges brought against them, so thecase proceeded totrial for thedeterminationoftheir innocence or otherwise. EVIDENCE ADDUCEDINCOURT: The Prosecution called six (6) witnesses in support of their case namely Stella Foriwaa (PW1), Job Osei (PW2), Kwame Adjei (PW3), Paa Kofi (PW4), Adjei Daniel (PW5) and No. 10448, Lance Corporal Ernestina APPIAH (PW6). The Accused persons called onewitness in supportoftheir case and there was onecourt witness. FACTSOF THE CASE: The case of the prosecution is that, the Complainant and A1 have a farmland located at Dumanafo near Kokuma handed over to them by their late father. Prosecution said that, during the month of July 2023, the Complainant cultivated maize on part of the land. Prosecution added that some weeks after, the Accused persons came together 2 and applied weedicide on the maize in the presence of witnesses and caused damage to the nine acre maize farm. Prosecution also stated that, the Complainant reported the matter to the Police and Accused persons were arrested. He said Accused persons admitted the offence in their investigation caution statement to the Police during investigation. Prosecution added that, as part of the investigations, the Department of Ministry of Food and Agriculture-Jema District were officially tasked to access and evaluates the cost of damage. He stated that in their report submitted, they valued the damage caused at GH 2,884.00. Prosecution said after investigations, Accused persons were charged withtheoffences stated in thecharge sheet and broughtbefore this Court. EVIDENCE OF PW1 PW1 in her evidence before this court stated that A1 is her step-brother from the same father, and she has five other siblings from the same parent. She added that their late father Opanyin Kweku Nyarko left 42 acres of farm land at Dumanafo near Kokuma, and the land is yet to be shared among them. Her case is that on 15/07/2023, she and her direct four siblings cultivated maize on 30 acres of the land and on 22/07/2023, his brother and husband visited the farm and met Accused persons and their labourers applyingweedicide onthe germinated maize. 3 She said she was informed by the husband and brother that they managed to stop them from applying the weedicide on the entire farm. However they agreed on the condition that they will all go to their father’s successor Kweku Sei to settle the issue. She said again that on 27/07/2023, whilst they were preparing to meet to discuss the issue with their father’s successor, somebody called her husband that A2 and some people were in the farm applying weedicide. According to her the husband and siblings rushed to the farm and met A2 indeed with a knapsack sprayer applying weedicide. So they made a video ofhim. EVIDENCE OF PW2 PW2 is the husband of PW1 and in his evidence in court he stated that, the wife that is PW1 and the siblings’ father left some farmland for them on his demise, but the land has not been shared. According to him the Complainant and her brothers on 15/07/2023 cleared part of the land and sow maize onit, and a week later, which was 22/07/2023,he and the Complainant’s brothers thus Adjei Kwame and Paa Kofi visited to see how the farm was doing. He said when they got to the farm they met the Accused persons with knapsack sprayer applying weedicide on the germinated maize, so they managed to stop them through the intervention of a certain man, who advised that they send the mattertoOpanyin KwekuSeitoaddress it, so they allleft the farm. 4 According to him again, on 27/07/2023, he was in the house with the Complainant when they had information that A2 and some labourers were in the farm applying weedicide on the other portion of the farm, so on receipt of that information he and the Complainant’s brothers that is Adjei Kwame and Adjei Daniel rushed to the farm and met A2 still applying the weedicide. So he asked him why he is still destroying the maize when he had already resolved to meet to deliberate over the matter. A2 replied that, yes, I am destroying it because we have already decided to destroy it and even showed them the extent to which they have gone to with the destruction. He added that in their presence he again mixed some weedicide in the knapsack sprayer and continued to spray it on the maize, and they tried to stop him but he refused and rather urged them to make videos of him because he knows what he is doing. So they made a video of him and also took photograph of the motor tricycle @ motor King that was parkedthere. EVIDENCE OF PW3 According to PW3, the Complainant is her elder sister and A1 is his step brother. He said their late father handed over 42 acres farm land to them at Dumanafo, and the Complainant and his other brothers cultivated part of the land and sowed maize on it on 15/07/2023. He stated that a week later he and his brother Paa Kofi and his sister’s 5 husband visited the farm to see how things were going. According to him when they got to the farm, they saw his step brother Takyi and his uncle Asabiri with knapsack sprayer applying weedicide to the maize. He said they managed to stop them through the intervention of a certain man, and the man advised them to stop destroying the entire farm and send whatever issues they have to elders to address it. According to him, the Accused personsagreed and theyallleft the farm. He stated again that, on 27/07/2023, he had a call from his sister’s husband that the Accused persons had gone back to the farm and they were destroying the maize again. Sohis sister’shusband, himself and his brotherAdjeiDaniel rushed tothe farmand met A2 with knapsack sprayer applying weedicide on the rest of the maize. He said they tried to stop him but he refused and in their presence A2 mixed some of the weedicide into the knapsack sprayer and sprayed it on the maize, and even went and point to them, portions he hadalready applythe weedicide. According to him his sister’s husband asked him why he is still destroying the rest of the maize when they agreed not to further destroy it, and he replied that they have taken the decision to destroy the maize they planted. He stated that A2 even urged them to make a video of him if they wish and that he knows what they were doing, so theymade avideo ofhim andleft him in the farm. 6 EVIDENCE OF PAAKOFI (PW4) PW4 stated that he knows the parties in the case. The Complainant is his biological sister and A1 is his step brother. He said that their late father handed down 42 acres of farmland at Dumanafo near Kokuma which is yet to be shared among them. According to him, on 15/07/2023, the siblings led by Complainant cultivated maize on part of the land, and a week later which was 22/07/2023, his brother Adjei Kwame, his brother in-law and himself visited the farm to see whether the maize had germinated. His case is that when they got there, they met the Accused persons applying weedicide on the germinated maize and it resulted in argument and they managed to stop them from causing further damage to the maize. He added that it was a certain man who advises them to stop and see the elders to address the issue. He said from there, they left the farm waiting for them to meet over the issue. However, on 27/07/2023, his brother Adjei Kwame and his brother in–law told him they went to the farm upon information they received and met A2 with knapsack sprayer applying weedicide to other portions of the farm. He also said that on the 27/07/2023, he did not go to the farm with them but on 22/07/2023, he went to the farm and met the Accused persons applyingweedicide onthe maize. 7 EVIDENCE OF (PW5) PW5 stated that he is a farmer residing at Nkoranza and he was involved from the preparation stage to the day the maize was sown on 15/07/2023. According to him, on 27/07/2023, he had a phone call from his brother that he had information that people were in Complainant’s farm destroying the maize, so he told him to accompany him to the farm, so himself, Adjei Kwame and his brother went to the farm and met A2 with knapsack sprayer applying weedicide to the germinated maize. He stated that when A2 exhausted the one he was applying, he again mixed some weedicide in their presence and started applying it. He added that A2 told them they should follow him, so that he will show them the portions he had already applied the weedicide. He further told them to make a video and send it anywhere they want, and that he knows what they were doing. PW5 again stated that, A2 told him, they had already made up their mind todestroythe maize theComplainant planted. EVIDENCE OF NO. 10448PW/L/CPL. ERNESTINA APPIAH(PW6) According to the investigator, on 28/07/2023, she was the investigator on duty at the charge office when a case of causing unlawful damage was reported and referred to her for investigations. She said she took statement from the Complainant and all possible witnesses, and also obtained caution statement from the Accused persons after which 8 the Complainant led police to Nkoranza for their arrest. She also stated that the Accused persons in their caution statement admitted the offences during investigation and in the course of investigations, the scene was visited with both parties and an Agric Extension Agent was tasked to evaluate the cost of the damage caused. She also said thatphotographsas wellasvideos ofthe scene were takenfor evidentialpurposes. EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSEDYAW TAKYI (A1) According to A1, the complaint and the other witnesses are his step siblings and he is the eldest among his father’s children. His case is that their father died last year and he gave them 42 acres of land at Dumanafo near Kokuma at Nkoranza North District to be shared among them. He said that after their father’s final funeral rites they shared the land among themselves, and he gave some part of the shared land which was given to him to his uncle A2 to cultivate maize. His case is that the portion he gave to his uncle Anthony Effah Asabiri was part of the land given to him when the land was shared among his siblings and family. He added that the portion of his land he gave to the uncle A2 needed preparation because the land was bushy so the uncle applied weedicide on that portion. He also that he was not in the farm when the uncle applied the weedicide. His case again is that, his uncle applied weedicide on the portion of the land which was due for preparation of the maize cultivation because he went to the 9 farm few days to check and also to clear his thoughts on the Complainant’s false accusations. According to him the place the uncle applied the weedicide was marginal land which needed preparation and not close to where the Complainant cultivated her maize. He said that he has not conspired with his uncle to cause any damage to a cultivated maize farm. His case again is that, the said claimed damaged maize farm grew up and was harvested by the Complainant’s husband and her siblings and that, the Complainant, her husband and her siblings went ahead to harvest his seven (7) acre of maize farm which he planted on his potion of the shared land. According to him the investigator used hearsay evident to conduct her investigation and did not visit the scene of crime with any of them to ascertain the real facts of the matter and where his uncle applied the weedicide. EVIDENCE OF A2 (ANTHONY EFFAH ASABIRI) A2 stated that, last year in the month of July 2023, he wanted a land to cultivate maize, so he informed his nephew and he showed him his land in Dumanafo near Kokuma in the Nkoranza North District which was given to him by his late father. He said that the land he showed him to cultivate his maize was the portion of the land given to him when the land was shared among his siblings and the family. He stated that, the land 10 shown to him needed preparation due to the bushy nature, so he applied weedicide on those arears. According to him, his nephew A1 was not at the farm when he was applying the weedicide on the marginal land. He said again that, the Complainant’s husband and her sibling did a video of him mixing the weedicide at the stream and he told them to follow him with the video to where he is applying the weedicide to clear their doubt. He added again that he applied the weedicide at the allocated land given to him to sow his maize and did not extent to any part of their land. His case again is that the investigator even did not visit the alleged crime scene to have a look at where he allegedly applied the weedicide. He also said, the investigator only listened to what the Complainant toldher anddid notgotothe crime scene tofind outthe truth. EVIDENCE OF DANIELOSEI (CW1) CW1 toldthe courthe knowsthe Accused personaswell asthe Complainant, and he waspresent the day theincident happened. He also said thatafter thefuneral ofthe Complainant and her siblings’ late father, the family decided to share the deceased land. And beforethe sharing, the Complainant went toapply weedicide onthe land. According tohim the Complainant didit before theyburied the deceased, and afterthe funeral, the customary successor tookasurveyorto theland tomeasure same forsame tobe shared. CW1 stated again thatthe successor decided to share it into 2because the 11 manhad 2wives and adate was fixed but theycouldn’t meet. He said again that the successorgave15acresto somebodytowork on,and someoneinthe village called Yaw Takyi(A1) thatthe Complainant’shave ploughed theentire land and they are spreading themaize, so theyinformed the successor. According to him the successor shared theland and said it’s leftwith 36acresand sohe divided it into 2and gave Yaw Takyipart andhissiblings did notagree. He also said that A1 decided todivide the landinto2and takehis portion 18acres, and forhis 18acres, YawTakyirealized that his 2acreswas partoftheland themaize had beenplanted on.Sohe said theyplant maize and not spread. And he said thatthe 2acresthathas come into his land nobody should go there. He also said that YawTakyigave aportiontoA2 tofarm on. SoA2 applied the weedicide onthe bushy arears. Allprosecution witnesses and the Accused persons andall their witnesses have testified to the fact the land belongs to A1 and the Complainant and their siblings deceased father. Per the evidence before the court, it was never stated anywhere that upon the demise of their father letters of administration or probate has been procured and the properties have been vested in them. The evidence on record also shows that they on their own have shared the farmland with no Letters of Administration. It should be noted that since Letters of Administration nor PROBATE and vesting assent has been 12 procured, none of them, that is the Complainant and her siblings and A1 can claim ownership of their deceased father’s farmland. The farmland therefore does not belong toany ofthem. Atthe end of the trial, the issue to bedetermined by this courtwas whether ornot the Prosecution hasled adequate evidence to prove the guilt ofthe Accused persons and to warrantaconviction. EVALUATIONOF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCEDINCOURT It is trite law that in all criminal cases, the burden of proof lies solely on the prosecution and the standard required is ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’. The prosecution thus has the responsibility to introduce sufficient evidence which on all the evidence will lead to nothing but theguilt ofthe Accused person. PerSection 11(2) ofthe Evidence Act, 1974(NRCD323)which provides as follows: ‘In criminal action, theburden ofproducing evidence when it is on theprosecution asto 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 beyonda reasonable doubt’. 13 Section 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323 provides the extent of proof or the burdenonthe prosecutionin acriminalactionthus: In a civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party ofacrime which isdirectly in issue requiresproof beyondreasonable doubt. The failure on the part of the prosecution will lead to acquittal and discharge of the Accused. See: the case of Republic v. Adams [1960] GLR 91 at 95 CA. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt in all criminal cases. The consequence of the above rule is based on the fact that an Accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This the prosecution can only do if they proffer enough evidence to convince the judge or jury that the Accused is guilty oftheingredients ofthe offence charged. Section 11(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323 define the burden of producing evidence as ‘the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling againsthimon theissueagainst thatparty’. The extent of onus on the defense on the other hand is provided by Section 13(2) of the Evidence Act 1975which statesthat: 14 ‘Except as provided in section 1 (3), in a criminal action the burden of persuasion, when it is on the Accused as to any fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires onlythattheAccused raises areasonable doubt astoguilt’. COUNTONE The Accused persons herein have been charged with Conspiracy to commit crime contraryto Section 23(1) ofAct 29 Conspiracy is defined under Section 23(1) of Act29as: - (1) If two or more persons agree or act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a crime, whether with or without any previous concert or deliberation, each of them is guilty of conspiracy to commit or abet that crime, asthecasemay be. To constitute the aforementioned offence, three essential ingredients must be proved and theyare: - a. That each of the conspirators knew and approved of the intention of the other conspirator orconspirators; b. Apreviousagreement between theconspiratorstocommit theoffence; 15 c. Intentiontoexecutetheagreement. The charge of conspiracy to commit crime under Section 23(1) was amply dealt with in the case of The Republic v. Maikankan and others [1972]2 GLR 502-514 where the courtper AboagyeJ. ashe thenwas held that: ‘For a charge of conspiracy to succeed under Section 23(1) of the Criminal Code, 1960(Act29), there must be evidence that the Accused person agreed or acted together with a commonpurpose tocommit theoffence’. In Mulcahy v. R (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306 at p. 317, Willes J. thus expatiated the law on conspiracy: "A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement oftwo or moreto doan unlawfulact, or to do a lawful act by unlawfulmeans. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it intoeffect, theveryplot is anact initself, It is not always easy to prove agreement by positive evidence, but this can be inferred fromthe conduct and statementsmade by theAccused personsas was stated in the case ofAzametsi v. The Republic [1974] 1GLR228CA. 16 From the law enunciated above, one needs to find out whether it could be inferred from the Accused persons conduct and statement that they acted together and there was that commonpurpose? CW1 in his statement to the court said that A1 gave a portion of his land to A2 to farm on and he applied weedicide to the bushy arears. After his evidence, the court gave the prosecution the opportunity to cross examine the witness, and during cross examination the prosecution tendered his statement to the police through him. It was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit ‘E’. This is what was in the statement “ Yaw Takyi told me to accompany him to his farm, I saw the brother in-law arguing with him and one of the brothers begging Yaw Takyi who was carrying a spraying machine at his back to exercise patience, and we calm him down and he stopped, and we decided tosend the mattertothe successor for settlement”. All prosecution witnesses except PW5 and PW6 attested to the fact that the incidents were two, but prosecution never stated this in the facts of prosecution, neither was this captured in the investigators evidence. The first incident is the one CW1 vividly explained in court that, for the first time they begged the Accused person A1 to stop the application of the weedicide and he stopped. This was confirmed by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 in their evidence in chief, and this happened on 22/7/24. It is also not in issue that on the second occasion that is 27/7/24 it was only A2 who was seen applying the 17 weedicide. PW1’s evidence is hearsay so I will not rely on same. PW2 said he met the Accused A1 with a knapsack sprayer at his back on the 27/7/24. PW3 and PW4 said they met A2 with a knapsack sprayer at his back on 27/7/24. PW5 never testified about the first incident he said he had information that some people are causing damage to the Complainant’s maize farm, so he and his brothers went to the farm and saw the Accused A2 applying theweedicides. The witnesses who testified on the 22/7/2024, incident stated that the Accused persons were with a knapsack sprayer and they were begged to stop. Meanwhile in prosecution’s exhibit ‘A1’, which is the investigation caution statement of A1, it was only A1 who was with the knapsack sprayer on that day. There are a lot of contradictionsand inconsistencies in prosecution’switnesses’ evidence. In exhibit ‘A1’, A1 stated that he had information that the siblings have ploughed the land and have planted maize, so he took a surveyor there to measure the land so that he will knowhis portion. He thenrealized that some ofthe maize the siblingshave planted has entered into his portion of the land, and he didn’t like their broadcasting method. So he took a spraying machine to apply the weedicide and the surveyor, CW1, his uncle A2, some of his brothers and a fair guy begged him to stop and he stopped, that they will send the matter to the successor to settle. And some days later he didn’t hear from them so he went to apply the weedicide. In exhibit ‘A2’, A2 said on the first day, A1 18 decided to apply the weedicide, the people there pleaded with him to stop and he stopped. And when A1 was not hearing fromthem, he went toapply the weedicide and asked him to go and finish the spraying so that he can continue with the planting of the maize, and when he was there, they came to video him. In exhibit ‘D’, the court witness also testified to the fact that on 22/7/24, A1 wanted to apply the weedicide they begged himtostopand hestopped. It was necessary that the prosecution should establish, not that the individuals were in direct communication with each other, or directly consulting together, but that they enteredinto anagreement with acommondesign. It is rare in conspiracy cases for there to be direct evidence of the agreement which is the gist of the crime. This usually has to be proved by evidence of subsequent acts, done in concert and indicating a previous agreement. In this instant case per exhibit ‘A1’, the uncle A2 was one of the people who begged him to stop, when he wanted to apply the weedicide. I am confused here, how can A2 plead with A1 to stop causing the damage to the maize plant and can be charge for conspiring with AI to cause damage to the maize farm. CW1 also confirmed that on the first incident it was only A1 who was with the spraying machine. It is also not in doubt that on the 27/7/24, it was only A2 who was met applying the weedicide. In the view of this court the conduct of Accused 19 persons shows that there was no collaboration between the Accused persons which is evident ofaprevious agreement to carryacriminal designinto effect. In the opinion of this court, there was no enough evidence from which conspiracy among the parties could be inferred because from all indications they didn’t act together to commit the crime. In addition, there was in this case no sufficient evidence directed and confined to the facts which constitute the anterior conspiracy, and therefore in the opinion of this court the count of conspiracy in the instant charge was notjustified COUNT 2–CAUSINGUNLWFULDAMAGE Section 174ofAct 29also provides as follows: “(1) A person does an act or causes an event unlawfully, within the meaning of the provisions of this Code relating to unlawful damage, in any case in which he is liable to any civil action or proceeding, or to a fine or other punishment under anyenactment, (a) in respect ofhisdoingsuch act causing such event, (b) in respect oftheconsequences oftheact or event, 20 (c) in which he would be so liable if he caused the event directly by his own act, or (d) in which he is liable to be restrained by injunction or any other proceedingfrom doing such act orcausing such event.” In the case of Yeboah & Anor v The Republic (1999 – 2000) 1 GLR 149, the Court of Appealindismissing anappealstated interalia that: “(I) on a charge of causing unlawful damage under section 172 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), the ingredients to be proved by the prosecution were intentionandunlawfuldamage.” In this instant case, all prosecution witnesses testified to the fact that, they were informed on 27/7/2023 that A2 and some people were in the farm applying weedicide. PW1 and PW2 said when the witnesses got there, A1 was applying weedicide. PW3, PW4 and PW5 said when they got there it was A2 who was applying the weedicide. PW1’s evidence is hearsay I will not rely on same. PW6 the investigator in the case never visited the crime scene to ascertain the causing damage case that was reported to her,so shameful onherpartas aninvestigator. This ensued during crossexamination onthe investigatorby A2. Q:Did yousee themaize farmthatthe weedicide hasbeen applied on? 21 A:No my lady, my lady Iwas pregnantI couldn’t visit the crime scene. Q:Yousaid youdidn’t visit the crime scene thenhow did youknowI havedestroyed theComplainant maize farm. A:I need to visit the land before Ican be able toknow. Q: I amputting it toyouthat what youaretelling the Courtis hearsay. A:Yes mylady. Q:Because it ishearsay some ofyourevidence is nottrue? A:It is true. Q:I amputting it toyouagain that youarenot atruthful witness? A:my ladyI amspeaking the truth. This also transpired during crossexamination ontheinvestigatorby A1. Q:Yousaid I applied weedicide onthe Complainant maize farm, what shows thatI haveapplied theweedicide. A:Youtold me. 22 Q:I amputting it toyouthat Ihave neverapplied any weedicide ontheComplainant’s maize farm A:I have no answer tothat question. Q:Do youknowthe disputed land? A:Yes myLady. Q:I amputting it toyouthat youdon’t knowthe disputed land? A:I know Q:I amputting it toyouagain that Ihave notapplied weedicide onany bodiesmaize farm. I wasjust working onmy farm? A:I have no answer. Q:Did yousee thedamaged maize farm. A:Yes mylady. Q:Tell the Courtthe size? A:About half acre. The investigatorcontradicted herselftoomuch during crossexamination. Iam notable tocomprehend this. Howcanthe investigatortellthecourt thathe was heavily 23 pregnantand so he couldn’tvisit the scene ofcrime. And if she wasunfit tovisit the crime scene couldn’t the service give it toanotherinvestigator,howcan apersonbe charged forcausing damage and the crime scene willnot be visited by theinvestigator From the testimony of PW6, she did not visit the crime scene, she relied on what the Complainants told her and charged the Accused person, very unprofessional on the part of the investigator. According to her testimony again, some police officers visited the crime scene, it meant that it was incumbent on the Prosecution to call those police officers to testify towhat they saw atthe crime scene In this case, the Accused persons during their testimony denied causing any damage to the Complainant’s 9 acre maize farm by applying weedicides. They stated that it was A2who applied the weedicide atthe marginal lands on27/7/24. As much as it is most detestable, in criminal cases, the burden of proof lie solely on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the person accused of an offence sufficiently. In this case, PW1 who asserts that his maize farm has been damaged by the Accused persons was not even at the scene of crime. It was rather his husband, who told her that it was A1 who was spraying the maize farm on the 27/7/2024, however in the husband’s testimony, he stated thatit was A2who was metapplying the weedicide. PW6, who investigated the matter, stated in court that she never visited the crime scene, so what were herfindings, if she made any. Her testimony was most unhelpful. 24 The Accused persons are also not credible witnesses, how come they never talked about theincident on22/7/24. For the Prosecution to succeed on this charge, it ought to prove that there was actual damage that, the damage was caused by the personcharged with having committed the offence. Onthe totality ofthe evidence before this court, it is my view that the Accused persons applied the weedicide on some portions of land A1 claimed ownership of, and on part of that land, the Complainant and the siblings broadcasted maize has germinated there. Per the evidence before the court, the maize was planted on15/7/2024, and on 22/7/2024, A1 went to apply the weedicide and he was stopped, and on 27/7/24, A2 went to apply the weedicide. I am not an agriculturalist but basic science tells me that maize plant takes about 5- 10 days to germinate. I am of the view that on those days the weedicide were applied, the maize plants on that portion of A1’s land has freshly germinated. Per prosecutions own exhibit ‘D’, that is the Agric officer’s report, the Agric officer stated that “when I visited the site/crime scene and upon keen observation I realized that the plants were surviving even after fourteen days without rains even though same were sprayed. Just that some missing stands were observed”. As I indicated earlier on, I am not an agriculturalist, but with my basic science, those missing stands were not as 25 a result of the spraying, if it is as a result of the spraying, or weedicide application, you will see a withered maize plant. So per exhibit ‘D’, there was no damage caused to the Complainant’s 9 acres maize farm, as a result of the weedicide application. In exhibits ‘A1’ and ‘A2’, the Accused persons admitted applying weedicides on some portions of A1 and the Complainant’s deceased fathers farmland, that A1 has allocated to himself, but they never admitted applying the weedicides on the Complainant’s 9 acre maize farm, and causing damage tosame. From this, I conclude that the Accused persons applied weedicide on that portion of land A1 has allocated to himself, and on part of that portion of land, some of the Complainant’s broadcasted maize has germinated there, but no damage was caused to themaize asaresult ofthe weedicide application. There is no evidence before this court to prove that in July, 2024, the Accused persons applied weedicides on the Complainant’s 9 acre maize farm and caused damage to same. Accordingly theAccused personsareacquitted and discharged. H/HLILY AMOAH–KANKAMESQ. .…………………………………….. CIRCUITCOURTJUDGE 26