REPUBLIC VRS. ABUBAKARI (D21/008/23) [2024] GHACC 387 (2 September 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CASE NO.: D21/008/23 THE REPUBLIC VRS SADAT ABUBAKARI ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT A.S.P. STEPHEN AHIALE FOR THE REPUBLIC PRESENT RAPHAEL KOFI BONIN, ESQ. FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT JUDGMENT The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 1 of 21 THE CHARGE The accused person was arraigned before this court on a charge of Robbery, contrary to section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). THE PLEA He pleaded not guilty to the charge after it had been read and explained to him in the Hausa language, being his language choice. FACTS The brief facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that the complainant Adiza Adam is a trader and a resident of Abofu whilst the accused person is a motor mechanic and has no permanent place of abode. On 08/06/2023 about 05:30hrs, the complainant was on her way to Accra where she sells her goods. Few meters away from her house, she saw the accused on a motor bike coming from her opposite direction, suddenly the accused stopped and turned facing the opposite direction and pretended he was urinating. When the complainant got closer to him, he pointed an implement like a pistol at her and ordered her to stop. The complainant took to her heels but the accused person gave her a chase and she fell on the ground. The accused subjected her to severe beatings amidst hitting her head with the gun like object. The accused person tried snatching her hand bag but she struggled with him to keep her bag. In the course of the struggle the complainant's iPhone XR mobile phone valued GHS2,000.00 fell from her bag. The accused person tried to pick her phone away but she resisted and the accused continue beating the complainant to weaken her so he could escape with the phone. The accused person succeeded in jumping onto his Royal motor bike with registration number M-23- GR 1902 with the complainant's phone to escape, but the complainant mastered courage and pushed him and he fell into the drainage together with the motor bike. The Assembly The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 2 of 21 Member, Hon. Leroy Traboulsi @ Governer who is a witness in this case and others around saw the scene and rushed to arrest the accused person. He was then handed over to the Achimota Terminal Police together with the Royal motor bike, the gun like implement, complainant's iPhone XR mobile Phone and another Itel mobile phone suspected to be proceeds of robbery. After investigations he was charged with the offence stated on the charge sheet and arraigned before this court. To prove their case, the prosecution called three witnesses and tendered in evidence exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’, being the investigation caution statement and charge statement of the accused person respectively; and exhibits ‘C’ to ‘H’ being photographs of the items found on the accused person including photographs of the complainant and the said phone. EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES PW1 who is also the complainant herein testified that her name is Adiza Adam. That she is a trader residing at Abofu, Achimota and did not know the accused person until the day he attacked her. She continued that on 8th June 2023, at about 5:00am, she left her house and was walking on the way to the nearest bus stop to pick a car to Accra when the accused person rode a motorbike and by passed her. That the accused person stopped a few meters from her and stood by his motorbike pretending to be urinating. According to PW1, when she got closer to the accused person, he pointed a gun at her and shot. That the sound of the gun made her panic. That she attempted running away but the accused person held her by her hair and pulled her back. He also held her handbag too. PW1 further testified that the accused person ordered her to bring her bag but she refused so he started beating her severely. That she continued to struggle with him over her bag The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 3 of 21 whiles he continued beating her unabatedly. That she went on her knees and begged him but he refused to accept her pleadings. That the accused person used the gun he was holding to hit her forehead several times. That he pulled the handle of her handbag and it got damaged and her phone fell off. That the accused person tried to pick her phone but she prevented him until he overpowered her and took her bag and phone. That the accused person sat on his motorbike and was about to speed off but she pushed him together with the motorbike and they both fell into a drainage. That it was at that juncture that some people came to her rescue and took the accused person to the Police station. That it was also then that she realized that what the accused person was holding was not a real gun. PW2, the investigator herein who is D/C/Inspr. Victor Mensah, an investigator stationed at the Achimota Terminal Police Station, also told the court in his evidence that he is the investigator in this case hence, the parties are known to him. That on 8th June 2023 about 5:40am, the Assembly member of Abofu, Leroy Traboulsi @Governor who is a witness in this case and four others arrested and brought to the station the accused person herein for the offence of Robbery and the case was referred to him for investigations. That as part of his investigations, a search was conducted on the accused and his backpack and that led to the recovery of implements such as one screw driver, a pair of scissors, a gun-like object and Itel mobile phone suspected to be obtained from robbery. He tendered photographs of these exhibits in evidence. That investigation cautioned statement was obtained from accused person who told police that same day about 5:00am, he was in-charge of a blue Royal motorbike with registration number M-23-GR 1902 and was returning from Amasaman and decided to pass through Abofu. That on reaching Abofu curve junction, his motorbike splashed water from a pothole on The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 4 of 21 complainant and it led to confrontation between them. PW2 tendered the accused person’s caution statement in evidence. According to PW2, when the accused person's claim was investigated, it was revealed that on 8th June 2023 about 5:00am, complainant was on her way to board a vehicle to Accra when she saw the accused person riding towards her. That the accused person suddenly turned to the direction he was previously coming from and subsequently parked the motorbike and pretended to be urinating. PW2 continued that a witness whose house is some few meters away from the scene saw the accused person standing at the junction and the complainant also walking towards him. That the said witness however thought the accused was rendering "Okada" service. That when the complainant got to the accused person, he pointed the gun-like object at her in order to scare her to surrender her belongings. That the complainant attempted to run but accused person held her braided hair and pulled her back enabling him to have a grip of complainant's handbag. That the complainant pleaded with the accused whilst holding firm to her bag but he subjected her to severe beatings. That in the process of their struggle, the handle of the bag got damaged enabling the accused to overpower her. That the accused person took possession of the bag and also picked the complainant's iPhone XR that fell from the bag and was about to speed off with his motorbike. That the complainant mastered courage and pushed the accused together with his motorbike and they fell into a nearby drainage. That the witness who heard the complainant screaming, called some other young men in the neighbourhood and they rushed to the scene and arrested the accused person and handed him over to the Police. According to PW2, the complainant sustained visible marks of assault and was issued with Police Medical Form to attend Hospital for treatment and report. She returned to the station with a duly endorsed Medical Form. That after investigations, the accused person was charged with the offence. He tendered the charge statement of the accused in The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 5 of 21 evidence. That he also took photographs of the complainant's phone, lady's handbag and the torn handle. He tendered the said photos in evidence. PW3, testified that his name is Leroy Traboulsi @ Governor. That he is the Assembly member of Abofu. He told the court that he does not know the accused person but the complainant lives a few meters away from his house. According to PW3, on 8th June 2023 at about 5:00am, he was standing in front of his office when he saw the complainant Adiza Adam passing by and was heading towards Abofu curve junction. That he had also seen the accused person Sadat Abubakari standing by a motorbike close to the junction. That he thought it was an "Okada" rider waiting for a passenger so he continued with what he was doing. PW3 continued that some few minutes later, he saw the accused person and the complainant struggling over a bag so he started walking towards them and when he realized that the struggle had resulted to the accused subjecting the complainant to severe beatings, he called other young men and they proceeded to the scene. That before they got to the scene, accused person had sat on his motorbike and was about to move; and he saw the complainant push the accused together with his motorbike and he fell in a gutter. That they then rushed to the gutter where accused person was lying and arrested him. That the complainant identified her phone in accused person's possession and they retrieved it and handed the accused together with the phone and the motorbike over to the Achimota Terminal police. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its case. After the close of the case of the prosecution, the Court examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses to determine whether or not a prima facie case had been The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 6 of 21 made by the prosecution to warrant the accused person to open his defence. The Court then ruled that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the accused person; and he was called upon to enter into his defence. In view of the above, the Court found that the accused person had a case to answer. The court however explained the rights of the accused person to him that he can decide to remain silent, make an unsworn statement from the dock or give evidence on oath. The court also reminded the accused person of the charge against him. EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSON In opening his defence, the accused person basically stated among other things that he lives at Nima and Madina and he is a motor-bike mechanic. That sometime last year the police arrested him and charged him with robbery against the complainant. That he did not rob the complainant of any mobile phone or any other object at all. According to the accused person, he accidentally splashed some water that had collected on some part of the road or street on the complainant and this resulted in some quarrel and misunderstanding between the two of them, and they exchanged words and blows. That the complainant insulted him bitterly and harshly. That he apologised for the water that had splashed on her accidentally and for the inconvenience and embarrassment that might have caused her but she would not listen and stop. That she continued to insult him and she held him and pushed him to clear the dirtied clothes, and he got infuriated and forcefully tried to disengage himself from her firm grip. That some parts of his clothes and her clothes got torn. The accused person continued that they indeed exchanged some blows and he must admit that though she fought stoutly with him, he could not easily over-power her. That he hit her and she also hit him. That when he thought matters had calmed down and he The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 7 of 21 had to leave, she forcefully pushed him and the motorbike he was riding and he fell violently whilst she continued to hit and push him. That it was at this point of the struggle that some people came around to separate them and try and make peace. That because of the struggle and fight, her phone and bag fell on the ground. That the complainant, the Assembly Member-Traboulsi searched him and took some cedis and dollars that he had on him and his phone (iPhone); and they sent him to the Achimota Police Station. That there were four other people around and they helped in separating them but the police did not bring them to court to testify for the truth to come out. That those people would have testified that he did not rob the complainant. According to the accused person he never robbed the victim and complainant. That he pleads with the court to acquit and discharge him because he never robbed her. The accused person and his lawyer intimated to the court that he will call a witness however, counsel for the accused person failed to comply with the direction of the court to file the witness statement of the said witness(es). The court also adjourned the hearing on two occasions for the accused person to call his said witness(es) for them to give oral evidence but no witness showed up in court to testify for the accused person. In view of that and considering that the accused person and his lawyer had delayed the proceedings enough, the court closed the defence of the accused person as well as the hearing of the instant case and adjourned same for judgment. LEGAL ISSUE The legal issue to be determined is whether or not the accused person herein did rob the complainant herein of her bag containing one iPhone XR mobile phone valued GHS2,000.00. The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 8 of 21 BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF The cardinal rule in all criminal proceedings is that the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused person is on the prosecution and the standard of proof required by the prosecution should be proof beyond reasonable doubt as provided in the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), per sections 11(2), 13(1) and 15. In the case of Gligah & Attiso v. The Republic [2010] SCGLR 870, the Supreme Court held in its holding 1 that: “Under article 19 (2) (c) of the 1992 constitution, everyone charged with a criminal offence was presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In other words, whenever an accused person was arraigned before any court in any criminal trial, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was therefore on the prosecution and it was only after a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution that the accused person would be called upon to give his side of the story.” 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 only. Thus, in the case of Osae v. The Republic [1980] GLR 446, the court held that: “although it was settled law that where the law cast the onus of proof on the accused, the burden on him was lighter than on the prosecutor, and the standard of proof required was the balance of probability, if at any time of the trial, the accused voluntarily assumed the The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 9 of 21 onus of proving his defence or some facts as happened in this case, the standard he had to discharge was on a balance of probabilities.” Significantly, whereas the prosecution carries that burden to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt as per sections 11(2) and 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), there is no such burden on the accused person to prove his innocence. At best he can only raise a doubt in the case of the prosecution. But the doubt must be real and not fanciful. ANALYSIS The accused person is charged with the offence of robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29. Section 149 (1) of Act 29 as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 2003 (Act 646) provides as follows: “Whoever commits robbery is guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction and trial summarily or on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten (10) years, and where the offence is committed by the use of an offensive weapon or offensive missile, the offender shall upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen (15) years”. Section 150 of Act 29 further defines robbery in the following terms; “A person who steals a thing is guilty of robbery if in and for the purpose of stealing the thing, he uses any force or causes any harm to any person, or if he uses any threat or The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 10 of 21 criminal assault or harm to any person, with intent thereby to prevent or overcome the resistance of that or of other person to the stealing of the thing.” In the case of Behome v. The Republic [1979] GLR 112, the court held that “one is only guilty of robbery if in stealing a thing he used any force or caused any harm or used any threat of criminal assault with intent thereby to prevent or overcome the resistance of his victims, to the stealing of the thing.” The essential ingredients of the offence that the prosecution must establish to secure conviction as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Frimpong alias Iboman v. The Republic [2012] 1 SCGLR 297 at 312, per Dotse JSC are as follows; i. That the accused person stole something from the victim of the robbery of which he is not the owner. ii. That in stealing the thing, the accused person used force, harm or threat of any criminal assault on the victim. iii. That the intention of doing so was to prevent or overcome the resistance of the victim. iv. That this fear of violence must either be of personal violence to the person robbed or to any member of his household or family in the restrictive sense. v. The thing stolen must be in the presence of the person threatened. From the evidence of the complainant who is also PW1, whilst on her way to the nearest bus stop to pick a car to Accra, the accused person rode a motorbike and by passed her. That when she got closer to the accused person, he pointed a gun at her and shot and that The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 11 of 21 made her panic so she attempted running away but the accused person held her by her hair and pulled her back; and also held her handbag. PW1 also testified that since she refused to willingly hand over her handbag to the accused person, he beat her severely whilst she struggled with him over her bag. That her handbag got damaged and fell and the accused person overpowered her and took her bag and phone but when he was about to leave the scene with his motorbike, she pushed him together with the motorbike and they both fell into a drainage; and some people came to her rescue; and took the accused person to the Police station. According to the complainant it was then that she realized that what the accused person was holding was not a real gun. From the evidence on record, PW1 maintained under cross examination that the accused person actually beat her severely and even though she struggled with him, he overpowered her and took her handbag and phone but for her pushing him into the gutter, he would have bolted with her handbag and phone. She vehemently denied the story of the accused person his lawyer put across when he cross examined her that the accused person inadvertently splashed water on her and apologised. PW2 and PW3, in their evidence corroborated the testimony of the PW1. According to PW3, he personally witnessed the complainant heading towards Abofu curve junction; then he saw the accused person standing by a motorbike close to the junction. PW3 also testified that he witnessed the accused person and the complainant struggling over a bag so he started walking towards them when he realized that the struggle had resulted to the accused subjecting the complainant to severe beatings. That he also saw that the accused person had sat on his motorbike and was about to move; and he saw the complainant pushed the accused together with his motorbike and he fell in a gutter so he went closer with other people and saw the accused person was lying there with the complainant’s phone in his possession and they retrieved it from him. The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 12 of 21 According to PW2, his investigations confirmed the complainant’s complaint made at the police station. The evidence led in support of the charge against the accused person indicates that the accused person used force to overcome the complainant’s resistance to steal her bag containing her phone. The accused person has denied same and also led evidence to suggest that he rather accidentally splashed some water that had collected on some part of the road on the complainant and this led to a quarrel and misunderstanding between the two of them, where they exchanged words and blows. Therefore, it boils down to the oath of the prosecution witnesses against the oath of the accused person. In the case of Lutterodt v. Commissioner of Police (1963) 2 GLR 427 the Supreme Court in holding 3 stated as follows: "where a decision of a trial court turns upon the oath of prosecution witness against that of a defence witness, it is, incumbent on the trial court to examine the evidence of the said witnesses carefully along with other. If the court prefers the evidence of the prosecution, then it must give reasons for the preference, but if it is unable to give any reasons for the preference then that means that there is a reasonable doubt as to which of the versions of the story is true, in which case, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the defence." Having examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carefully along with the evidence of the accused person, this court prefers the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for the following reasons. PW1 adduced evidence to the effect that the accused person attacked and assaulted her. PW1 was consistent during the trial as she maintained her stance throughout the trial that The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 13 of 21 the accused person held her handbag and ordered her to give him her bag but she refused so he started beating her severely whilst she continued to struggle with him over her bag. That he used the gun he was holding to hit her forehead several times, pulled the handle of the bag and it got damaged where he tried to pick her phone but she prevented him until she was overpowered by the accused person. PW2 also tendered the said torn handbag of the complainant supporting the assertion that, the complainant’s handbag got damaged after the accused person forcefully took the said bag from her. It is trite learning that the court can conveniently convict a person based on the evidence of a single witness. However, in the instant case PW3 led corroborative evidence confirming the complainant’s version of events. The evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses are very consistent as PW3 testified that he was an eye witness to the attack and assault on the complainant by the accused person. PW3 also told the court that he saw the accused person and the complainant struggling over a bag which is very consistent with PW1’s evidence that she continued to struggle with the accused person over her bag. Similarly, PW3 testified that as they proceeded to the scene to rescue the complainant, they saw the complainant push the accused person and his motorbike into a gutter and the complainant identified her phone in the accused person’s possession and they retrieved it. This also corroborates PW1’s evidence that the accused person tried to take her phone but she prevented him until he overpowered her and took her bag and phone; and as he sat on his motorbike and was about to speed off, she pushed him together with his motorbike and they fell into a drainage. PW1 also told the court that the accused rode on a motorbike and by passed her whilst she was on her way to the nearest bus stop to pick a car. Moreover, PW3 testified that he The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 14 of 21 saw the accused person standing by a motorbike closed to the junction as though he was waiting for a passenger. According to PW3, this was after he had earlier seen the complainant heading towards Abofu curve junction. The accused person under cross examination admitted that PW3 went to the scene when the incident happened. However, the accused person who well understood the evidence given by PW3 (as same was read and explained to him in Hausa being his choice of language) told the court that he had no question to ask PW3. The reasonable inference from the above evidence by PW1 which was largely corroborated by PW3 is that the accused person stopped riding after he bypassed PW1 to wait for her to get closer to him and launched his attack on her which resulted in a struggle between the accused person and the complainant as he did not have it easy with the complainant although he eventually overpowered the complainant by subjecting her to severe beatings. Therefore, at which point did the accused person accidentally splash water on the road on the complainant? An assertion in the defence of the accused person which has been vehemently denied by PW1 under cross examination when the accused person’s lawyer brought same up during cross examination of PW1. From the evidence on record, PW3 is an Assembly member of Abofu where the incident happened. PW3 is a key witness in this case, his position in the community as an Assembly member makes him a neutral party who has no affiliation to any of the parties in this case. Indeed, the prosecution had to apply for a subpoena to be issued and served on PW3 before he attended court to rely on his witness statement as his evidence in chief. This tells that PW3 has no interest in the case and his neutrality is not in doubt. Therefore, there is no likelihood that PW3 might have concocted stories or testified in court about what he did not see. I therefore find him as a credible witness. The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 15 of 21 From the evidence on record, one of the items retrieved from the accused person was a gun-like object which is said to be a gas lighter. Even though the item found on the accused person as tendered in evidence by PW2 is not a gun, it was designed to look like a gun so what did the accused person intend the one seeing that implement to think? He wanted the complainant to think it was a gun that is why he pointed same at her. This confirms the testimony of the complainant that the accused person pointed a gun at her but it was after the people had come to her rescue and took the accused person to the police station that she realized that what the accused person was holding was not a real gun. The said gun-like object actually looks like a gun and any reasonable person in the shoes of the complainant at whom it was pulled, would easily take it for a gun and thereby would react as he would have to, if a gun had been pulled at him. The test is an objective one, thus applying how and what a reasonable man would have seen it and reacted to it had the said object been pulled at him. From the testimony of PW1, she panicked when the accused person pointed a gun at her and shot so she attempted running away but the accused person held her by her hair and pulled her back; and also held her handbag. PW1 stated in clear terms that she saw the said object as a gun. Notwithstanding that the said implement was not a real gun, the accused person intended it to be seen as a gun hence, I find that the accused person pointed the said gun- like implement, intended to be seen as a gun, at the complainant and put fear in her given the circumstances he attacked her. Therefore, can the said gun-like object be regarded as an offensive missile or offensive weapon within the meaning of section 149 of Act 29? Section 149 (3) of Act 29 explains offensive weapon and offensive missile as follows: The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 16 of 21 “In this section "offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use to cause injury to the person or damage to property or intended by the person who has the weapon to use it to cause injury or damage; and "offensive missile" includes a stone, brick or any article or thing likely to cause harm, damage or injury if thrown.” From the above, the court has made a finding that the accused person had a clear intention to create in the mind of the complainant that the said gas lighter was a gun. Indeed, any reasonable man in whose face the gun-like object was pointed at would have entertained a fear of imminent danger and would have reacted to it. PW1 testified that she panicked when the accused pulled same at her because she saw it as a gun despite it being a gas lighter; and the accused person told her that he will kill her. However, considering the literal meaning of offensive weapon as used in the section above, I do not think that the gas lighter shaped like a gun, which although the accused intended it to look like a gun and have the effect a gun would have on PW1, is a gun properly so called. From the entire evidence on record, even though the accused person pointed the said gun-like object on the complainant as she told the court, the said implement was not what the accused used to overcome the resistance of the complainant. This is because the complainant told the court that after the accused pointed the said gun-like object at her, she panicked and attempted to run away but the accused person held her by her hair and pulled her back; and also held her handbag. According to PW1, she still refused to willingly hand over her handbag to the accused person, until he subjected her to severe beatings whilst she struggled with him over her bag and the accused eventually overpowered her. I therefore find that the accused overpowered the resistance of the complainant by assaulting her severely and did not use the said gun-like object to cause any harm to the complainant as there is no evidence on record to suggest that. The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 17 of 21 In the circumstances, to interpret a gas lighter which the accused person did not use to cause any harm to the complainant, as a weapon for the purposes of imposing a sentence would be unfair to the accused. In the interest of justice, I shall assign to the gas lighter shaped like a gun what it is, but not what accused wanted it to represent and the said object is clearly not an offensive weapon within the contemplation of section 149(3) of Act 29 and in the circumstances of the instant case. I therefore find that the said gas lighter shaped like a gun under the circumstances of the instant case is not an offensive weapon within the meaning of section 149(3) of Act 29. PW2 told the court that the complainant sustained visible marks of assault and was issued with Police Medical Form to attend hospital for treatment and she returned to the station with a duly endorsed medical form. However, the said medical form was not tendered in evidence to assist the court to determine the extent of physical injury the accused person caused the complainant. Nonetheless, PW2 tendered photographs of the complainant which was taken when she reported at the police station after being attacked by the accused person. The said photographs reveal some minor wounds on the elbow and knee of the complainant. Also, part of the complainant’s trousers she wore in the photograph was torn at the knee area. Flowing from the above analysis, the court is unable to accept the defence of the accused person as it is not reasonably probable. I rather believe the evidence of PW1 who is the victim of the accused person’s assault, to steal her bag containing her mobile phone which was corroborated by the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 parti. The evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses are sufficient corroboration which confirmed the case of the prosecution that the accused person actually assaulted the complainant and took her bag containing her phone from her but was pushed into a gutter by the complainant which led to his arrest and the items were retrieved from him. The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 18 of 21 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). However, the defence of the accused person could not raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. CONCLUSION On the totality of the evidence on record, I find and hold that the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person with the use of force, to overcome the resistance of the complainant did dishonestly appropriate her bag containing one mobile phone but same was retrieved from him when he was arrested. For the foregoing reasons, I pronounce the accused person herein guilty of the charge of robbery against him and I accordingly convict him of same. Pre-Sentencing hearing Court: Is there any plea in mitigation before sentence is passed? Counsel for Accused: The accused person is a young person and a first-time offender. He is married and has a kid of 4 years old. He has shown remorse ever since he was arrested and learnt his lesson in a hard way. In a number of decisions by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has said that in giving sentences to the accused, the court should take into consideration the age The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 19 of 21 of the accused, the full circumstances of their social background and administer the barest minimum sentences especially with first time offenders. That the Court should not give custodial sentences when there are options of a fine. So our plea to the court is to give the minimum sentence to afford the accused person a real chance of coming back to the society as a reformed person. Court : Is the accused person known? Prosecutor: No, we do not have any records of him being known. SENTENCING In sentencing the accused person, I have taken into consideration his plea in mitigation and the fact that he is a first-time offender as well as his youthful age. I have also considered the fact that the complainant’s handbag and phone were retrieved from the accused person. In accordance with Article 14(6) of the 1992 Constitution, I have considered the time spent by the accused person in custody. However, I have further taken into consideration the fact that the accused person subjected the complainant to severe beatings and caused her some minor physical harm thereby causing her physical pains. I have as well considered the fact the complainant’s handbag got damaged due to the struggle the accused person had with her over the said handbag. Consequently, I sentence the accused person to serve a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) years in hard labour (I.H.L.) The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 20 of 21 Restitution Order On record, upon an application by the prosecutor, the court on 14th June, 2023 ordered that the said iPhone XR mobile phone which was retrieved from the accused person be released to the complainant herein. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) The Republic v. Sadat Abubakari Page 21 of 21