REPUBLIC VRS. GYAMFI AND OTHERS (D2/038/24) [2024] GHACC 380 (28 June 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CASE NO.: D2/038/24 THE REPUBLIC VRS 1. ERIC GYAMFI 2. TWO OTHERS AT LARGE FIRST ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT TWO OTHERS AT LARGE A.S.P. STEPHEN AHIALE FOR THE REPUBLIC PRESENT NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON JUDGMENT The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 1 of 20 THE CHARGES The first accused person herein was arraigned before this court on 24th January 2024 charged with the offences below. The two others are at large and therefore have not appeared before the court since the case was registered in this court. Hence, the first accused person (hereinafter referred to as the accused person) was arraigned before this Court on the following charges; 1. Conspiracy to commit crime to wit Robbery, contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). 2. Unlawful Entry, contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). 3. Robbery, contrary to section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). THE PLEA The accused person pleaded guilty with explanation to the charges after they had been read and explained to him in Twi, being his language choice. The explanation by the accused person was as follows: “It was not three of us that agreed to rob. I was the only person. Complainant took me to the house and gave me the phones and money herself. I have spent the money but the phones are with the CID." The court upon listening to the explanation by the accused person, entered a plea of Not Guilty in favour of the accused person and conducted a trial. The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 2 of 20 FACTS The brief facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that complainants Aisha Dauda and Zuwera Dauda are food vendors whilst the accused person Eric Gyamfi is unemployed and all are residents of Achimota, Abofu and Accra New Town respectively. Both complainants are food vendors and prepare their food and sell same at Polo Park, Alajo. On 16/01/2024, complainants left home to sell their food at their usual place and returned the following day at about 01:00 hours. At about 03:00 hours, Aisha Dauda heard her name being called ‘mma Aisha, mma Aisha’ in a known manner, then she woke up and went to open the door to see who was that. Suddenly, accused person forced himself into the room wielding a kitchen knife and ordered both complainants to surrender their mobile phones and cash amidst instructing both to remain silent. Aisha gave out a keypad mobile phone to him but he refused and insisted they surrender their smart mobile phones and cash. The accused person further threatened with the kitchen knife and PW1 and PW2 surrendered their iPhone 11 pro and Infinix mobile phones respectively for fear of their lives. With the kitchen knife, the accused person pointed at two ladies' bag and a bum bag containing their daily sales as well as the content of the two bags totaling cash of GH¢20,000.00 in a threatened manner and same were handed over to him. The accused person closed the door behind him and fled the scene. On 18/01/2024, at about 20:00 hours, the complainants spotted the accused person at Polo Park, Alajo where they usually sell their food and raised alarm for his arrest by civilians and subsequently handed him over to Kotobabi Police. The complainants, led by Kotobabi police handed over the accused person to Achimota Terminal Police and lodged a formal complainant. The accused person admitted the offences in his caution statement. During investigations, the iPhone 11 pro and Infinix Smart 7 mobile phones were retrieved from the accused person but the kitchen knife could not be retrieved. After The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 3 of 20 investigation, he was charged with the offences stated on the charge sheet and arraigned before this honourable 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 exhibit ‘C’ being a photograph of two phones (iPhone 11 Pro and Infinix Smart 7 phone). EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES PW1 gave her name as Aisha Dauda. She testified that on the 17th January 2024 she and her sister Zuwera Dauda returned home around 1:00am and were in the room putting their things together when about 3:00am,they heard a knock on the door amidst calling of her name “mma Aisha” in a familiar manner. That she first opened the door and was in a process of opening the trap door then suddenly, three masked young men forcefully opened the trap door and pushed her back into the room. According to PW1, they ordered them to bring all the money in the room and also hand over their phones. That the accused person who was holding a kitchen knife pointed at Zuwera Dauda’s bag and said she should bring the money in that bag and Zuwera handed over the money which was in the bag to him. He pointed at her bag and ordered her to bring the money in it and she gave money out to him. PW1 continued that the accused person again pointed at the bum bag containing the day’s sales and she handed it over to him. That he forcefully collected Zuwera Dauda’s Infinix smart 7 phone and told her to add her own. She told him that she was not having a smart phone so she gave him her keypad phone but he declined. He insisted that he wanted her smart phone. That the accused who was still holding the knife, pointed at her The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 4 of 20 iPhone 11 pro which she was trying to hide under the bed so she handed over same to him. According to PW1, the accused person attempted making advances on her and in the process, she pushed him off her which accidentally unmasked him causing his accomplices to leave the room. That after the mask fell off, the accused resorted to prophesy. That he started prophesying in their lives, and told them the incident that led to Zuwera’s husband’s death and also warned them not to board a car for the whole day. Subsequently, he left with the two phones and total cash estimated to be GH¢20,000.00. PW1 further testified that on 18/01/2024 about 8:00pm, she spotted the accused person at Polo Park, Alajo. That she raised an alarm for assistance and with the help of some young men, he was arrested and handed over to Kotobabi Police. She concluded that the accused led the Police to Akotex, Accra New Town where her iPhone 11 pro was retrieved. Afterwards, Kotobabi Police brought them to Achimota Terminal Police to lodge a formal complaint. PW2, the investigator herein D/C/Inspr. Victor Mensah stationed at Achimota Terminal Police Station, testified that he is the investigator in this case and the parties are known to him. That on 19/01/2024 about 12:20am, C/Inspr. Redeemer Doegah of Kotobabi Police Station i/c CPA Daniel Fialiga together with the complainants, Aisha Dauda and Zuwera Dauda arrested and brought to the station the accused person for the offence of Robbery and the case was referred to him for investigations. That Kotobabi Police handed over complainant Aisha Dauda’s iPhone 11 Pro which was retrieved from the accused person at the time of arrest and same was retained at the station as exhibit. PW2 continued that the accused person in his investigation cautioned statement admitted going to complainant’s place of abode at Abofu and forcefully collected their iPhone 11 The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 5 of 20 Pro, Infinix smart 7 phone and cash the sum of GH¢4,000.00. That he also prophesized in their lives before he bolted. PW2 tendered the caution statement of the accused person in evidence as exhibit ‘A’. According to PW2, investigations revealed that on the 17th January 2024 at 3:00am, accused person called complainant Aisha Dauda in familiar manner whiles knocking on the door. She thought it was a known person as they had just returned from Alajo from work. She opened the door and was about to open the trap door then suddenly, accused person and two others in mask forcefully entered. They ordered them to remain silent and hand over their phones and monies to them. That the accused who was holding a kitchen knife, used same to point at two ladies’ hand bags which each of them had kept their monies in and a bum bag that contains the day's sales all totaling about GH¢20,000.00. Out of fear, they handed over all to the accused person. He also collected complainants’ iPhone 11 Pro and Infinix smart 7 phone and attempted making advances on Aisha. In the process, Aisha pushed him and accidentally accused person was unmasked. The two who are now at large, went out leaving the accused person alone who now resorted to prophesying in complainants' lives to put fear in them not to report the incident or trace him. Afterward, he bolted. PW2 further told the court in his evidence that, as part of the investigations, accused person led Police to Polo Park, Alajo where complainant Zuwera Dauda's Infinix smart 7 phone was retrieved. However, Police could not retrieve the GH¢4,000.00 in which accused admitted was the amount he took from complainants' room. That GH¢2,000.00 was used to pay for cocaine he had purchased and the rest of the money was used to rent a room in a hotel at Alajo and some was used for other miscellaneous. He concluded that after investigations, the accused person was charged with the offence. PW2 tender the charge statement of the accused in evidence as exhibit ‘B’. That he also The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 6 of 20 took photographs of the complainants' iPhone 11 Pro and Infinix smart 7 phone. He tendered the said photographs in evidence as exhibit ‘C’. PW3, gave his name as C/Inspr. Redeemer Doegah of Kotobabi Police Station. He told the court in his evidence that on 18/01/2024 about 8:50pm, complainant Aisha Dauda together with two others brought to the charge office the accused person and said the accused had robbed her and the sister at Abofu of two assorted phones and an unspecified amount of money. That upon interrogation, the accused admitted the offence and said that the phones were at Accra New Town. That he mobilized men and the accused led Police to Akotex, Accra New Town where complainant Aisha Dauda's iPhone 11 Pro was retrieved. Subsequently, accused person together with complainants were taken to Achimota Terminal Police Station for further investigations as the crime committed falls under that jurisdiction. PW3 concluded that on 21/01/2024, intelligence gathered led Police to Raaco-Down RD where complainant Zuwera Dauda's Infinix smart 7 phone was also retrieved. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its case. After the close of the case of the prosecution, the Court examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to determine whether a prima facie case had been made by the prosecution to warrant the accused person to open his defence. The Court then gave a ruling that a prima facie case had been made and the duty of the accused person was to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. In view of that the accused person was called upon to enter into his defence, after the options available to him as an accused person were explained to him. The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 7 of 20 EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSON In opening his defence, the accused person testified in open Court that his name is Eric Bosomtwe Gyamfi. That he lives at Kasoa Adamnana; he is a tailor and also a caterer. That he only knows Ayesha (complainant) and her sister. He further testified that he was chatting with Ayesha on phone and he told her he likes her and she also said she likes him. So, she made him come to her work place at Polo Park at Alajo. That, she afterwards took him to her house at Abofu. According to the accused person, in the course of chatting with her, she said she will give him a gift. That she handed over two phones to him and he also left with the said phones. That all the people in the house saw that she brought him to her house in a Taxi. That he did not force her to take anything from her. The accused person continued that on 18th January he went to her workplace at Polo Park, Alajo, then she started making noise that he came to her house with two people to rob her. That before God and man, he knows he has offended but he does not know anything about the robbery. He pleaded with the Court that though he has offended he did not forcefully collect anything from her. The accused person concluded that the CID is aware of the case and the CID has made this same case stealing and sent him to the District Court. The accused person did not call witness and thereafter closed his defence. LEGAL ISSUES The legal issues to be determined are: The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 8 of 20 1. Whether or not the accused person and two others now at large unlawfully entered the room of Aisha Dauda and Zuwera Dauda with intent to commit robbery. 2. Whether or not the accused person herein did agree to act together with two others now at large with a common purpose to commit robbery. 3. Whether or not the accused person herein did rob Aisha Dauda and Zuwera Dauda of one Infinix Smart 7 mobile phone valued GH¢1,100.00, one iPhone 11 Pro mobile phone valued GH¢5,000.00, and cash the sum of GH¢20,000.00 all totaling GH¢26,100.00. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF The fundamental 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. This being a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Under Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty or has pleaded guilty. This requirement is provided in sections 11, 13 and 15 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). In the case of Asante (No.1) v. The Republic (No.1) [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 132 at 143 per Pwamang JSC, it was held that: “Our law is that when a person is charged with a criminal offence it shall be the duty of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, meaning the prosecution has a burden to lead sufficient admissible evidence such that on an assessment of the totality of the evidence adduced in Court, including that led by the accused person, the Court would believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed and that it was the The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 9 of 20 accused person who committed it. Apart from specific cases of strict liability offences, the general rule is that throughout a criminal trial the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person remains with the prosecution. Therefore, though the accused person may testify and call witnesses to explain his side of the case where at the close of the case of the prosecution a prima facie case is made against him, he is generally not required by law to prove anything. He is only to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to his commission of the offence and his complicity in it except where he relies on a statutory or special defence.” Also, in the case of Republic v. Adu-Boahen & Another [1993-94] 2 GLR 324-342, per Kpegah JSC, the Supreme Court held that: “A plea of not guilty is a general denial of the charge by an accused which makes it imperative that the prosecution proves its case against an accused person... When a plea of not guilty is voluntarily entered by an accused or is entered for him by the trial court, the prosecution assumes the burden to prove, by admissible and credible evidence, every ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt”. ANALYSIS 1. Whether or not the accused person and two others now at large unlawfully entered the room of Aisha Dauda and Zuwera Dauda with intent to commit robbery. Section 152 of Act 29 on unlawful entry provides that: “Whoever unlawfully enters any building with the intention of committing crime therein shall be guilty of second degree felony.” The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 10 of 20 The elements of the offence of unlawful entry are contained in section 153 of Act 29 and it provides as follows: “A person unlawfully enters a building if he enters otherwise than in his own right or by the consent of some other person able to give such consent for the purposes for which he enters." PW1 in her evidence in chief told the court that on 17th January 2024 she and her sister Zuwera Dauda returned home around 1:00am and were in the room putting their things together when about 3:00am, they heard a knock on the door amidst calling of her name “mma Aisha” in a familiar manner. That she first opened the door and was in a process of opening the trap door then suddenly, three masked young men forcefully opened the trap door and pushed her back into the room. PW2 also told the court that his investigations confirmed that after knocking on the door of PW1, the accused person forcefully entered the room when PW1 opened the door. PW1 maintained under cross examination that the accused person knocked and entered forcefully. The accused person testified in his evidence that PW1 took him to her house after they both expressed interest in each other, which was vehemently denied by PW1 under cross examination who maintained that she did not know the accused person prior to him coming to her house and forcefully opened the door. In exhibit ‘A’ which is the caution statement of the accused person and very similar to the charge statement which is in evidence as exhibit ‘B’, the accused person stated as follows: “On 17/01/2024 about 3:00am, I went to complainant’s house at Abofu and knocked on their door. I had memorized their names previously so I called Aisha by her name. She responded and opened the door so I entered.” The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 11 of 20 From the investigation caution and charge statements of the accused person which were duly tendered in evidence, the accused person admitted entering the complainant’s house but added that he mentioned her name and she responded and opened the door. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it can be gathered that after the accused person entered the house of the complainant without her consent, he managed to get the complainant to open her room after which he forcefully entered same. Therefore it can be safely concluded that the accused person entered the room of the complainant without her consent considering the odd hour the accused person went to the said premises. From the evidence on record and the elements of the offence of unlawful entry as provided in section 153 of Act 29, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the elements of the offence of unlawful entry beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence on record indicates that the accused person unlawfully entered the room of the complainant herein. I shall next address issues two and three together. Issue two is “Whether or not the accused person herein did agree to act together with two others now at large with a common purpose to commit robbery” and issue three is “Whether or not the accused person herein did rob Aisha Dauda and Zuwera Dauda of one Infinix Smart 7 mobile phone valued GH¢1,100.00, one iPhone 11 Pro mobile phone valued GH¢5,000.00, and cash the sum of GH¢20,000.00 all totaling GH¢26,100.00”. The accused person is also charged with conspiracy to commit crime to wit; robbery, contrary to section 23(1) and 149 of Act 29, and the substantive offence of robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29. Section 23(1) of Act 29 on conspiracy provides that: The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 12 of 20 “Where two or more persons agree to act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a criminal offence, whether with or without a previous concert or deliberation, each of them commits a conspiracy to commit or abet the criminal offence.” The essential ingredients of the offence which the prosecution must prove to succeed on the charge of Conspiracy as stated by Kyei Baffour JA sitting as an additional High Court Judge in the case of Republic v. Eugene Baffoe Bonnie (unreported); Suit No. CR/904/2017 delivered on 12th May, 2020, are as follows: i. That there were at least two or more persons. ii. That there was an agreement to act together. iii. That the sole purpose of the agreement to act together was for a criminal enterprise. In the case of Faisal Mohammed Akilu v. The Republic [2017-2018] SCGLR 444 the Supreme Court per Yaw Appau JSC stated on Conspiracy as follows; “Conspiracy could therefore be inferred from the mere act of having taken part in the crime where the crime was actually committed. Where the conspiracy charge is hinged on an alleged acting together or in concert, the prosecution is tasked with the duty to prove or establish the role each of the alleged conspirators played in accomplishing the crime”` It is essential that I set out the law on the substantive offence of robbery to discuss the two offences together. 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 The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 13 of 20 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 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. The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 14 of 20 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 PW1 who is also one of the complainants, the accused person who was holding a kitchen knife pointed same at Zuwera Dauda’s bag and said she should bring the money in that bag and Zuwera handed over the money which was in the bag to him. He pointed at her bag and ordered her to bring the money in it and she gave money out to him. That the accused person again pointed at the bum bag containing the day’s sales and she handed it over to him. That he forcefully collected Zuwera Dauda’s Infinix smart 7 phone and told her to add her own. She told him that she was not having a smart phone so she gave him her keypad phone but he declined. He insisted that he wanted her smart phone. That the accused who was still holding the knife, pointed at her iPhone 11 pro which she was trying to hide under the bed so she handed over same to her. That the accused person subsequently left with the two phones and total cash estimated to be GH¢20,000.00. From the evidence before this court, PW1 maintained under cross examination that the accused person attacked her and stole from her. That the accused person was holding the knife and told her that if she is not steady he will hurt her with the knife so she was alert. The accused person in his defence testified that PW1 willingly handed over the two phones to him as a gift after she took him to her house because they liked each other. That all the people in her house saw that PW1 brought him to her house in a taxi; and that he did not force her to take anything from her. The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 15 of 20 PW1 denied the accused person’s story vehemently when he brought same up during cross examination of PW1. There is no evidence before this court that PW1 took the accused person to her house and gave the said two phones to him as a gift because they had expressed interest in each other. The accused person in his explanation to the plea of guilty on the charges against him told the court that it was not three of them that agreed to rob. That he was the only person. That the Complainant took him to the house and gave him the phones and money herself. That he has spent the money but the phones are with the CID. The evidence led in support of the charge that the accused person agreed and acted together with two others now at large to rob the complainant therefore, 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." The accused person in his investigation caution and charge statements, stated inter alia that he forcefully took their phones, one iPhone 11 Pro and Infinix phone. That he told them to handover the money they had in the room to him so one of them, Zuwera, handed The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 16 of 20 over an envelope containing GH¢4,000.00 and he bolted afterwards. That when he was arrested he led police to retrieve the iPhone 11 Pro. A careful scrutiny of exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ shows that they were taken in compliance with section 120 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). There was an independent witness in the person of Amina Malik in both exhibit ‘A’ and exhibit ‘B’. Akamba JSC in the case of Ekow Russel v. The Republic [2016] 102 GMJ 124 SC, stated as follows: “... A confession is an acknowledgment in express words, by the accused in a criminal charge, of the truth of the main fact charged or of some essential part of it. By its nature, such statement if voluntarily given by an accused person himself, offers the most reliable piece of evidence upon which to convict the accused. It is for this reason that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that what is given as a confession is voluntary and of the accused person’s own free will without fear, intimidation, coercion, promises or favours ...” (Emphasis mine) From the evidence before this court, the testimony of PW1 is not too different from the accused person’s investigation caution and charge statements on the issue of the element of force he applied to overpower the complainant in order to dishonestly appropriate the phones and money. However there is not sufficient evidence on record that the accused person used a kitchen knife on the complainants in taking their phones and money from them forcefully. From the evidence on record, there is also no satisfactory evidence by the prosecution to indicate the agreement by the accused person and the two others at large to act together with a common purpose to commit robbery as well as the role they each played in the The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 17 of 20 commission of the offence of robbery. I accordingly find that the prosecution has not been able to establish the elements of conspiracy. In the case of Commissioner of Police v. Isaac Antwi [1961] GLR 408-412, it was held that the accused person is not required to prove anything. All that is required of him is to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. This is further emphasized by sections 11(3) and 13(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). The defence of the accused person could not raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt because same is not reasonably probable. There is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the charges of unlawful entry and robbery as analyzed above. However the prosecution could not prove the amount of GH¢20,000.00 as having been robbed of the complainants by the accused person. Therefore the court will accept the amount of GH¢4,000.00 admitted by the accused person in exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’. On the other hand, there is no concrete evidence on record to sustain the charge of conspiracy to commit crime to wit robbery. Consequently, the charge of conspiracy to commit crime to wit robbery is hereby dismissed. From the evidence on record and the authorities above, I accordingly acquit and discharge the accused person on the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery on count one. CONCLUSION On the totality of the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt on counts two and three. For the foregoing reasons, I pronounce the accused person herein guilty of the charges against him on counts two and three; and accordingly convict him of the offences of unlawful entry and robbery respectively. The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 18 of 20 Pre-Sentencing hearing Court: Any plea in mitigation before sentence is passed? Accused: I plead with the Court to be lenient with me. I have children in the house I am taking care of. The mother of the children is deceased so I want the court to give me time to take care of the children. Court : Is the accused person known? Prosecutor: We are not able to bring proof of his previous conviction. The claim that he has children that he is taking care of cannot be true because during cross examination he admitted that he was released from police custody on remand few days before this particular incidence. SENTENCING In sentencing the accused person, the court takes into consideration his plea in mitigation and the fact that he is a first time offender as well as the youthful age of the accused person. In accordance with Article 14(6) of the 1992 Constitution, time spent by the accused person in custody is considered. The court further takes into consideration the fact that the two phones stolen by the accused person were retrieved. The court further takes into consideration the fact that no physical harm was caused to the complainant and there is no evidence of any offensive weapon used by the accused person. The court has however considered that the fact the amount of GH¢4,000.00 admitted by the accused The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 19 of 20 person was not retrieved as he told the court in his explanation that he has spent the money. I consequently sentence the accused person as follows: Count 2: The accused person is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) months in hard labour (I.H.L.) Count 3: The accused person is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of thirteen (13) years in hard labour (I.H.L.) The sentences shall run concurrently. Restitution Order On record, upon an application by the prosecutor, the court on 24th January 2024 ordered for the restoration of the retrieved items, iPhone 11 pro and Infinix Smart 7 mobile phones to their owners. In accordance with section 146 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), the accused person is ordered to refund the amount of GH¢4,000.00 to the complainant being the money he admitted to, in exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) The Republic v. Eric Gyamfi & Two Others At Large Page 20 of 20