REPUBLIC VRS NANA ANYAMAH KYEREWAA & 3 ORS (B1/37/2021) [2024] GHACC 316 (11 October 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, MPRAESO, EASTERN REGION, BEFORE HER HONOUR MRS ADWOA AKYAAMAA OFOSU, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE ON FRIDAY THE 11TH OF OCTOBER, 2024 __________________________________________________________________ B1/37/2021 THE REPUBLIC V NANA ANYAMAH KYEREWAA KWAME GYASI KOFI AMPONSAH NANA YAMOAH PONKOR @LARGE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………. TIME: 9:12 ACCUSED PERSONS: A1 & A3 PRESENT A2 ABSENT CYRIL BOATENG KETEKU ESQ SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE PROSECUTION WITH MUSTAPHA MAHAMA PRESENT BENJAMIN AGYAPONG ESQ FOR THE ACCUSED PERSONS ABSENT JUDGMENT The four named accused persons herein are jointly charged on count one with ‘Abetment of crime to wit causing harm’ contrary to section 20(1) and 69 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1969 (Act 29) and count two with ‘causing harm’ contrary to section 69 of Act 29 P age 1 | 20 supra. A1, A2 and A3 appeared before this court on the 15th of March, 2021 and the charges were read to them. They all pleaded not guilty to the charge. By their pleas therefore, the prosecution assumed the burden to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A4 remains at large. The charges against the accused persons are premised on the following facts as attached to the charge sheet: The complainant by name Nana Asiedu Akora II is a businessman and the chief of Akyem Ntronang. A1 Nana Anyamah Kyerewaa is a farmer. A2 Kwame Gyasi is a cook, A3 Kofi Amponsah is a farmer and A4 Nana Yamoah Ponko is an aviation meteorologist. The complainant and the accused persons live at Ntronang except A4 who lives in Canada. On the 26th of November, 2018 at about 8:00 am, A3 together with three others at large went to the complainant’s palace. Whilst the complainant was returning from his bathroom, A3 and the three others at large confronted him that they were looking for Asiedu Akora. The complainant told them to wait for him to wear a shirt and was about to enter his room. A3 and the three others attacked him and he fell down. They pulled out machetes and assaulted the complainant with the machete and tore his Jalabia. They dragged the complainant on the ground from the palace to Ntronang Social Center about 200 meters away from the complainant’s palace. A1 who was at the social gathering center together with A2 and A4 ordered A3 and the three accomplices at large to beat the complainant. The accused persons assaulted the complainant and inflicted wounds at his back. They slaughtered a ram and poured its blood on the complainant and told him they have destooled him and that he is no more the chief of Akyem Ntronang. After that all the accused persons went into hiding. The complainant reported the case to the New Abirem Police on the 11th of December, 2018. The police served A1, A2, A3 and A4 with criminal summons to appear before the P age 2 | 20 New Abirem District Court on 12th December, 2018. On the 12th of December, 2018, the court granted all the accused persons bail. On 5th March 2019, a duplicate case docket was prepared and forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office Koforidua for advice. On 10th September, 2020, police received the advice from the Attorney General’s office and per the advice, A1, A2 and A3 were discharged from the District Court. They were charged according to the advice and granted bail to appear before this court on 15th March, 2021. It is trite learning that a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until he has pleaded guilty or proven guilty. See Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution. The burden and standard of proof required of the prosecution in criminal cases is codified in the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323, section 11 (2) and 13 (1) as follows: Section 11(2) 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 reasonable mind could find the existence of the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt. Section 13(1) In any civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of Oteng v. The State [1966] GLR 352 at page 354 -355, the Supreme Court held that: “One significant respect in which our criminal law differs from our civil law is that while in civil law a plaintiff may win on a balance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the prosecution cannot obtain conviction upon mere probabilities”… The citizen too is entitled to protection against the State and that our law is that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt as distinct from fanciful doubt.” P age 3 | 20 The term "reasonable doubt" as explained by Lord Denning in the case of Miller vs. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372 is as follows; "It needs not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. The Law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful positions to deflect the course of justice" THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION To prove its case, the prosecution filed five witness statements including that of Nana Barimah Asomaning but he did not appear at the trial to testify because according to the prosecution he had been taken seriously ill and was bedridden. His witness statement was thus struck out. The prosecution in the course of the trial filed another witness statement with the leave of the court on the 22nd of July, 2022 for one Anim Alexander Boateng. The prosecution thus led evidence through five witnesses. The 1st prosecution witness (PW1) was Nana Asiedu Akora II, the complainant, the second prosecution witness (PW2) was Charity Amponsah, the third prosecution witnesss (PW3) was Miriam Okyere, the fourth prosecution witness (PW4) was Detective Inspector Henry Acolatse and the fifth prosecution witness (PW5) was Anim Alexander Boateng. The record shows that in a ruling dated 17th January, 2023, this court differently constituted acquitted and discharged the accused persons on count two as in its opinion the prosecution was not able to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons . They were however called upon to open their defence in accordance with section 174 of the Criminal and other Offences (Procedure) Act 1960 (Act 30) in respect of count one P age 4 | 20 as the court ruled that the prosecution had made a sufficient case against them to require them to open their defence. PW1 testified that he is the chief of Ntronang. That on 26th November, 2018 about 7:30 am as he was about to enter his wash room, he realised that a chamber pot had been placed in the middle of his palace so he decided to take it and place same in the room. When he got to where the chamber pot was, he saw about five men who he did not know but who he could identify when seen including A3 who is a native of his community entering the palace. When they got to where he was, one of them asked him that they were looking for Akora. He asked them who is Akora and one of them answered by saying Asiedu. He then asked them to excuse him for a moment and one of them shouted he is the one. Suddenly, all five of the said boys rushed on him and dragged him on the floor out of the palace to the entrance. According to PW1, he tried to free himself but some of them pulled machetes from their trousers and used same to hit his body inflicting wounds on him. One of them said they should kill him but one other who was holding his right arm said no while one other said not now. Two of the said men held him by both hands whilst the remaining were brandishing their machetes preventing other people who were watching from rescuing him. He continued to testify that at the entrance, they dragged him on the ground and continued to hit him with the machetes. They assaulted him all the way to the social gathering center which is about 200 meters away from the palace. In the course of dragging him, they were all saying that they had destooled him. The 1st accused person also followed shouting that they had destooled him so A3 should bring the ram to be slaughtered to signify his destoolment. Whilst they were dragging him, they tore his P age 5 | 20 clothe which is popularly known as Jalabia leaving only his boxer shorts on. A3 then brought the ram and slaughtered it together with the boys and poured its blood on his legs and feet. They all shouted that they have destooled him. During all these acts, some of the boys holding him were videotaping the acts on their cell phones however, they prevented the women who were following from taking pictures with their phones. Some women who tried taking pictures or videos had their phones taken from them by his assailants. When they finished slaughtering the ram, he told them that they should allow him to go home but they said they were not done with what they were doing. PW1 further testified that the assailants continued dragging him through the streets of Ntronang to the market area and told him that they were waiting for the D.C.E. to arrive and then the police would also come and take him away. During the time they were dragging him to the market area, he saw one of the boys going up and down and later signaled the others who had gripped him. All of a sudden the boys who were holding him let go of his hands and took to their heels. He then saw a mob running from the community towards the direction of the one who gave them the signal. He went home and took pictures of the wounds inflicted on his body. When he finished taking the pictures at the palace, a lady brought a piece of the Jalabia that his assailants tore and his slippers that he was wearing before the attack. PW1 said that thereafter, he wore a new Jalabia and went to the police station and reported the case. A police medical report form was issued to him to attend the hospital for treatment and report back. He went to the hospital for treatment as directed by the police. Upon his return from the hospital, he submitted his witness statement and the endorsed medical report form to the police. P age 6 | 20 PW2 testified that she is a trader and owns a shop at the Ntonang station. That she normally opens her shop between 7:30am and 8:00am from Mondays to Saturdays after church on Sundays. According to PW2, she knows PW1 and the accused persons who all live at Ntronang. She testified that on the material date, at about 8:00 am, she was in the process of opening her shop when she heard some unusual noise at the Ntronang social gathering center. She testified that she saw that some people were running whiles others were crying. She asked what was happening and she was told that PW1 was being beaten at the social gathering center. Immediately, she stopped opening the shop and rushed to the scene. PW2 further told the court that when she got there, she saw A3 who was carrying a ram around his neck. She also saw A1, A2, A4 and three other men who do not live at Ntronang. A1, A2 and A4 instructed the three others to beat PW1. The three people kept hitting PW1 with machetes and prevented others from taking video footage of what was happening and further prevented people from rescuing PW1. According to PW2, she heard A1, A2 and A4 tell A3 to slaughter the ram and pour the blood on PW1’s body and feet. A3 put the ram on PW1’s feet and cut its throat and used the blood of the animal as he has been instructed. PW2 further testified that PW1 asked the accused persons what they had done to him and they replied that they have destooled him. A1 continued to say that she enstooled and she had destooled him. The three men continued to beat PW1 and dragged him on the streets of Ntronang. When they reached where the borehole is, A1 had a call. After her conversation on the phone, she told her people to stop. She told the three boys who were beating PW1 to run away. They all took to their heels with the cutlass they were holding. P age 7 | 20 PW3 told the court that she lives at Gate Ano a suburb of Ntronang and she is a trader who sells second hand bed sheets. That she knows PW1 as the chief of Ntronang and also knows A1 who was the queen mother of Ntronang. She said she also knows the other accused persons. She testified that on the 26th of November, 2018 at about 8:00am, she was in her house when she heard some noise outside so she stepped out of the house to find out what was happening. She saw a group of people running towards the social gathering center at Ntronang. She also followed them and when she got there, she also saw three boys who she did not know holding PW1 who was wearing boxer shorts only. The boys who were all holding machetes were hitting PW1 with same. She could hear PW1 asking them what she had done to them. Whenever the said boys saw someone taking a picture they collected the mobile phone and hit it on the ground. Some of the boys were also using the machetes to prevent the town boys who wanted to rescue the chief. PW3 said that she saw A1 and A3. A3 was carrying a ram to the social gathering center. When they got there, A3 slaughtered the ram and poured the blood on PW1’s body. A1 told PW1 that “I enstooled you”. I am destooling you today. A1 kept saying this and she said she instructed the boys to bring PW1 to be destooled. Later, all the boys who were holding and beating PW1 left him and took to their heels. PW1 left the social gathering center to his palace. PW4 told the court that PW1 and the accused persons are all natives of Ntronang. That number 39833 Sergeant Emmanuel Arthur Forson was an investigator who was stationed at New Abirem police station in the year 2020 and he was the one who was tasked to investigate the case reported by PW1. After forwarding the duplicate case docket to the Attorney General’s office, Sergeant Emmanuel Forson was transferred to the Ashanti region but he is now at peace keeping mission at Sudan. PW4 said that when Sergeant Forson was transferred to Kumasi, he was directed to take over the case. P age 8 | 20 According to PW4 when he took over investigation, he realised that a case of ‘causing harm’ was reported by PW1 and a statement was taken from him and he was also given a medical form to attend hospital. He also noticed that his colleague had obtained statements from eye witnesses. He also saw photographs of wound from PW1’s body caused by the accused persons and others who are at large. It was also clear from the docket that his colleague had visited the scene of crime to gather some evidence of the incident. That his colleague had received a pen drive with files including an audio about an interview that A1 granted to the media in the course of his investigation. He also noticed that his colleague had arrested the accused persons and obtained investigation cautioned statements from them and had forwarded the duplicate docket to the AG’s office for advice. PW4 further testified that on 10th September, 2020 the advice of the AG was received and he was instructed to take over the investigation. Thereafter he obtained statements from the witnesses. In the course of investigations, he charged A1, A2 and A3 according to the Attorney General’s advice. That the 4th accused person is on the run and has been declared wanted and notice of same was published in the daily graphic on the 20th October, 2020. After investigation he arraigned the accused person before this court. PW5 testified that he is a journalist with Obuoba fm at Nkawkaw and he knows pw1 and A1 as the chief and queen mother respectively of Ntronang. That sometime in October 2018, the station had information concerning the destoolment of Nana Asiedu Akora II as the chief on Ntronang. He later got the telephone number of A1 and interviewed her during the 6:00pm news on Obuoba fm on that day where she explained her version of the story. He testified that the prosecution contacted him in respect of the interview A1 granted him and the management of the fm station granted its approval to have same tendered in court. P age 9 | 20 The exhibits the prosecution tendered in evidence in support of its case are as follows: • Photographs showing PW1 with his wounds: Exhibit A series • Photographs showing the torn attire and slippers of PW1: Exhibit B • The endorsed medical report of PW1: Exhibit C • Audio recording and transcript of interview granted by A1 to Obuoba fm: Exhibit D • Cautioned Statements of A1 to A4: Exhibits E,F, G and H respectively • Statement of Sergeant Emmanuel Arthur Forson: Exhibit J • Charge statements of A1 A2 and A3: Exhibits K,L,M respectively • Proceedings of this court in respect of case number B1/41/2022 involving A1 A2, DW1( Samuel Ankamah) and one Kwasi Boateng: Exhibit N THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE A1 in her witness statement A1 identifies herself as the queen mother of Ntronang and stated that she does not know anything about the charge levelled against her. She denied that she caused some people to beat or cause harm to PW1. According to her, she enstooled PW1 as the chief of Ntronang in 1997. That he was not working so they pointed out all the stool properties including cocoa farm and palm plantation to him and later Newmont started paying royalties to PW1. She further testified that PW1 was using the money for himself and was not doing anything for the town. This caused an uproar by the citizens and people of Ntronang. A1 further testified that she confronted PW1 about it and being annoyed, PW1 informed her that he had destooled her. She therefore decided to destool PW1 because he was not doing anything for the Ntronang Town. A1 further said that three boys brought PW1 to P age 10 | 20 the social gathering center and she asked A3 to help her slaughter a ram to signify PW1’s destoolment. She stated that A3 was not part of the boys who brought PW1 to the social gathering center and he also did not cause harm to PW1. A1 again stated that A2 was also not present at the time of the incident because he was in Accra. A1 further told the court that she was found guilty of a contempt charge at the Oda High Court for purportedly destooling PW1 whilst the destoolment matter was being heard at the Oda Traditional Council. She was asked to sign a bond to be of good behaviour and fined and that PW1 is dissatisfied that she was not imprisoned that is why he hatched this other charge of causing harm against her to get her imprisoned. She reiterated that she did not order the three men to beat or cause harm to PW1. A2 on his part testified that on the 26th of November, 2018 when the purported incident happened, he was with Samuel Ankamah who came to visit him on the 23rd of November, 2018 at Sowutuom, Accra and left on the 27th of November, 2018. He therefore said that he did not know anything about the charges levelled against him because he was not in Akyem Ntronang at the time of the incident and he is absolutely innocent. A2 called the said Samuel Ankamah as his witness and he testified as DW1. He confirmed that he was with A2 from the 23rd November, 2018 to 27th November, 2018. He reiterated that A2 was not in Akyem Ntronang at the time of the incident. A3 also denied the charges levelled against him and stated that it is not true that he was among the boys who went to PW1’s palace to carry him to the social gathering center. According to him, he only assisted A1 to slaughter the ram to destool the complainant. That because of his innocence in the matter, he was found not guilty in a contempt charge at the Oda High Court against him and because the complainant was dissatisfied, he hatched the instant charges against him. He further said that A1 did not order the three men to beat or cause harm to PW1 and that A2 was not present at the time of the incident. P age 11 | 20 ANALYSES Section 20(1) under which the accused persons are charged on count one provides that: A person who directly or indirectly instigates, commands, counsels, procures, solicits or in any other manner purposely aids, facilitates, encourages or promotes, whether by a personal act or presence or otherwise and a person who does an act for the purposes of aiding, facilitating, encouraging or promoting the commission of a criminal offence by any other person whether known or unknown, certain or uncertain, commits the criminal offence of abetting that criminal offence and of abetting the other person in respect of that criminal offence PW1 testified that while his assailants were hitting him with machetes and dragging him on the ground all the way to the social gathering center, A1 followed shouting that they have destooled him and she asked A3 to go and bring the ram to be slaughtered to signify his destoolment. Throughout his evidence in chief, PW1 did not mention that A2 was present. However, PW2 and PW3 who were eye witnesses categorically stated that all the accused persons were present at the time PW1 was being assaulted by some three men and they actually urged them on to beat PW1 up. During cross examination of PW2 on the 19th of January, 2022, the following ensued Q: Which of the accused persons did you see at the social gathering centre on the date in question? A: I saw all three of them; they were together with one Yamoah Ponkoh making them four persons Q: So which of them did you see beating up PW1? A: None of them was beating up PW1. But they were asking or telling the perpetrators to assault PW1 P age 12 | 20 During further cross examination of PW2 on the 22nd of February, 2022, PW2 insisted that she saw the accused persons at the crime scene on the day in question. The following are excerpts of the cross examination of PW2 by counsel for the accused persons: Q: On that fateful day there was a crowd at the scene of the crime A: Yes there was a crowd of people Q: And it was noisy, isn’t that correct A: Yes Q: You were standing far from where the incident was taking place A: Where I was standing, I could see and hear from the scene. So when I heard the voices of the person, I went closer to enable me hear them very well Q: You were behind the crowd; isn’t that correct A: No, I was standing behind the crowd. But when the said three men I do not know were beating up PW1, the A1, A2 and A3 were urging them on to beat up the PW1 with the cutlass Q: But in your evidence on the last adjourned date you stated that the crowd prevented the people to come and rescue the PW1 A: The persons who were beating PW1 were the ones who prevented from coming close or from taking video recordings. It was not the crowd who prevented others. Q: I am suggesting to you that because of the crowd you could not even come close to hear what the A1 said A: I got closer and heard all that A1 said P age 13 | 20 Q: I am further putting it to you that because of the noise at the scene, you did not hear what the A1 said A:I heard everything she said. Because I was shocked by what she (A1) was doing. So I got closer to enable me hear and see what was happening Furthermore, PW3 also confirmed that the accused persons told the men to beat PW1 up. The following ensued during cross examination of PW3 by counsel for the accused: Q: During the incident, people were not allowed to come to where the crime was going on A: It is correct Q: It was also noisy not so A: Yes Q: And you were standing far from the incident A: Where the incident was going on and where I was standing were not far from each other Q: I put it to you that you were standing behind the gathering A: I was there. I stood behind the gathering but I saw all that took place Q: I put it to you that because it was noisy and you were standing behind the gathering, you did not hear what was being said at the scene A: I heard everything Q: I am further putting it to you that none of the accused persons asked any of the unknown men to assault or set up the PW1 A: They were present. And they all told the said men to beat up PW1. P age 14 | 20 From the above I am clear in my mind that both PW2 and PW3 actually witnessed what happened on the day in question. They are all aligned that all the accused persons including A4 who is at large, were present and urged the three men to beat PW1 up. They all said that they saw the three men holding machetes and hitting PW1 with it and they all said that the said young men prevented people who wanted to rescue PW1. There was therefore corroborative evidence of the involvement of A1, A2, A3 as well as A4 being present and urging the three boys to beat PW1. Furthermore, there is evidence per Exhibits A series being photographs of PW1 showing the injuries he sustained and Exhibit C, the medical report of PW1 confirming the injuries he sustained as a result of the assault meted out to him by the three men on the day in question. In her defence, A1 said she did not ask anyone to beat or cause harm to PW1 and that three boys brought the chief to the social gathering center and she asked A3 to help him slaughter a ram to signify the destoolment of PW1. In her cautioned statement Exhibit E she said that on the 26th of November, 2018, she called three boys from Ntronang to go to PW1’s house and carry him to the social gathering center. A1 further explained her actions in Exhibit E that she had confronted PW1 about some royalties that had been paid to him by Newmont to which she was also entitled and PW1 got annoyed and said he had destooled her. She sent the matter to the Oda Traditional Council and PW1 was asked to reinstate her but he refused. She therefore decided to destool PW1. The evidence of A1 on oath is therefore clearly in contradiction with the statement he gave to the police. The position of the law is that a witness whose evidence on oath is contradictory of a previous statement made by him whether sworn or unsworn is not worthy of credit and his evidence cannot therefore be regarded as being of any importance in the light of his previous contradictory statement unless he is able to give a reasonable explanation for the contradictions. See: State v. Otchere and Others [1963] 2GLR 463 P age 15 | 20 From the evidence therefore, I find that A1 purposely engaged the services of the three boys to abuse PW1 to enable her carry out her purported destoolment of PW1. It is obvious that A1 was aggrieved because PW1 had allegedly refused to give her some monies she claimed she was entitled to and so A1 was definitely in support of any ill treatment that was meted out to PW1 by the three men that she engaged and indeed the evidence established that PW1 was harmed. PW2 and PW3 therefore could not have been telling untruth when they said that they saw three men beating PW1 with machetes with A1 and the other accused persons urging them on. At least with the evidence that PW1 was harmed by the three men that A1 engaged, there is no evidence to show that A1 did anything to prevent the three men from causing harm to PW1. It is my view that if the three men did not have the support of A1 who engaged them to harm PW1 they would not have done so. I therefore find as a fact that A1 indeed instigated and encouraged the three men to assault and cause harm to PW1. A2 on his part simply denied the charge and testified that he was not in Ntronang on the day in question, that is, 27th November, 2018 yet he did not file any notice of alibi for same to be investigated as required under section 131 of Act 30 supra. His failure to file a notice of alibi is however not fatal as was held in the case of Afwireng v. The Republic [1972]1GLR 270. In that case, the appellant in his defence set up an alibi and contended that contrary to what the defence alleged, he was elsewhere and not at the scene of crime. He however failed to give notice of his defence of alibi and so the evidence was excluded. Upon his conviction, he appealed, contending that the failure to give notice was not fatal to the defence. It was held that where a magistrate does not call upon an accused person to give a notice of alibi when such defence is raised and the prosecution also does not call the attention of the court to the requirement and does not apply for the particulars of the defence to be given, such failure does not exclude the evidence of alibi. P age 16 | 20 As in the instant case, even though A2 did not file a notice of alibi, he raised the defence of alibi and since the prosecution did not call the attention of the court to the requirement, the evidence of alibi led by A2 shall be given full consideration. See: Bediako & Others v. The State [1963] 1GLR 48. A2’s defence is that on the 26th of November, 2018, when the incident happened he was in Sowutuom, Accra because at that time he was living there. He said that from 6:00 am when he woke up from bed, he was with Ankomah Samauel who came to visit him on the 23rd of November, 2018 and left on 27th of November, 2018. The said Ankomah Samuel, DW1 testified in court and corroborated the evidence of A2 to the effect that on the 26th of November, 2018 he was with A2 in Sowutuom, Accra. DW1 was however discredited during cross examination and his evidence in support of A2’s alibi in my view cannot be relied upon. Having rejected DW1’s evidence, there is no other evidence to corroborate A2’s assertion that he was in Sowutuom, Accra on the material date. Indeed to further cast doubt on A2’s alibi, A1 in her cautioned statement Exhibit E stated unequivocally that on the 26th of November, 2018 at about 2:00 pm, she, together with Yamoah Ponkoh Ababio II and Kwame Gyasi (A2), came to the District Commander at New Abirem and informed him about the destoolment and also introduced to him the new chief of Akim Ntronang. This statement was given voluntarily by A1 to the police and I have no doubt in my mind that A1 was certain about what he told the police. The statement of A1 therefore negatives any suggestion that A2 was not in Ntronang on the day of the incident and this reinforces the evidence of PW2 and PW3 that they saw A2 at the scene of crime together with the other accused persons urging the three men on to beat PW1. It is therefore my finding that A2 was present at the scene and together with A1 and A4, a he did instigate or encourage the three young men to beat PW1 which ultimately led to him sustaining injuries. P age 17 | 20 A3 admits that he was at the scene and that the only role he played was to kill the ram for PW1’s destoolment. From the evidence however, it is clear that A3 did more than merely killing a ram for PW1’s destoolment because the evidence shows that he was one of those who followed PW1 at the time he was being assaulted and being dragged from the palace to the social gathering center by the others until he was asked by A1 to bring the ram. In Rv. Coney [1882] 8 QBD 534, it was held that “one can be held to have wilfully encouraged the commission of a crime if he, voluntarily and purposely present at, and witnessing the commission of the crime, offers no opposition thereto though he might be reasonably expected to prevent it and had the power so to do or at least express dissent”. Here, I find that A3 like the other accused persons did not express any dissent while PW1 was being assaulted by the three men but rather encouraged it as it facilitated their agenda of destooling PW1. The position of the law is that an accused person in a criminal trial has no burden to prove his innocence. All that he needs to do is to raise a doubt in the prosecution’s case. See; Commissioner of Police v. Isaac Antwi [1961] 1GLR 408. On the totality of the evidence, it is my respectful view that the accused persons failed to raise a doubt in the prosecution’s case in respect of count one. The conclusion therefore is that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused persons on count one. Accordingly they are pronounced guilty and convicted accordingly. SENTENCING P age 18 | 20 In sentencing the accused, I have taken into account the plea in mitigation made on behalf of the accused persons. I have also taken into account the submission of the prosecutor. Considering the facts of the case it is my view that the aggravating factors far outweigh the mitigating factors and the accused persons ought to be punished in a way that will send a signal to similar minded persons not to engage in such acts. Traditional leaders of whatever status must realise that there are laws in this country and whatever authority and powers that are vested with are subject to the laws of the country. They cannot therefore take the law into their own hands and engage in despicable conducts as what happened in the instant case. Apart from the physical injuries meted out to PW1, he also suffered humiliation in the full glare of his subjects, an act that would remain indelible in his mind for the rest of his life. For all the above reasons, I am compelled to impose a custodial sentence which in my view is most appropriate considering the circumstances of this case. However considering the ages of the accused persons, I will be most lenient and sentence the accused persons as follows: A1 who is the main architect of the drama that unfolded on the day in question is sentenced to 7 days imprisonment IHL in addition to a fine of 1,000.00 penalty units in default twelve months imprisonment. A3 is sentenced to a day imprisonment in addition to a fine of 700 penalty units in default twelve months imprisonment. In respect of A2 who has travelled outside the jurisdiction without the authority of the court and being fully aware of the business of the day is sentenced to three years imprisonment IHL. The prosecution must take steps to get A2 to serve his sentence. P age 19 | 20 H/H ADWOA AKYAAMAA OFOSU (MRS) CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE P age 20 | 20