REPUBLIC VRS ISSAH (BR/SY/CT/286/2023) [2024] GHACC 124 (9 February 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT GOASO IN THE AHAFO REGION ON FRIDAY THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 BEFORE HIS HONOUR CHARLES KWASI ACHEAMPONG ESQ. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE BR/SY/CT/286/2023 THE REPUBLIC VRS. ANTHONY ISSAH JUDGMENT It is Prosecution’s case that accused person broke into complainant’s wooden structure stole 9 bags of cement which complainant had kept in the said structure. According to Prosecution’s facts, accused person had hired the services of a tricycle rider and his companion on the day of the incident at about 11:30pm for the rider to assist him convey his personal belongings. Upon arriving at the vicinity, accused instructed the rider to wait for him while he procures the items to be conveyed. Complainant and neighbours heard strange sounds emanating from the structure of complainant and when they decided to investigate accused person to flee the scene. By then accused person had managed to load unto the tricycle nine (9) bags of cement. The tricycle rider’s companion was however arrested at the scene by the residents but they managed to lead police to arrest accused person. It was Prosecution’s case that, accused person confessed to the crime and alleged that the tricycle rider and his companions were not involved in the offence at all. As such, Prosecution charged accused person alone for the offence. 1 Upon his arraignment on the 3rd of March 2023, accused person denied the offence by pleading not guilty to all three counts. Trial successfully commenced on the 13th of July 2023 with Prosecution calling just one witness, the investigator. Pw1 testified to the effect that on the 14th of February 2023 an intended witness in the suit, was brought to the police station together with 9 bags of cement and a tricycle and a case of stealing was lodged against him. However, while interrogating this intended witness who turned out to be the companion of the tricycle rider, the tricycle rider himself reported to the police station. These two took the police to the scene of the crime where Pw1 discovered that the lock on the wooden structure was damaged and the padlock taken away, inside the structure also contained 40 bags of cement but one had been damaged. Pw1 alleged that the rider and his companion identified the spot where accused asked them to park while he conveyed the bags of cement. It was the case of Pw1 that, the two intimated that they only realized that accused had stolen the cement when they saw him running from the scene. Subsequently, accused was spotted in town by the rider’s companion and caused his arrest. Upon conclusion of investigations, Prosecution opted not to prosecute the rider and his companion rather to use them as witnesses since Prosecution alleges that accused person upon interrogation confessed to the crime and alleged that the rider and his companion had nothing to do with the offences in question. Having been confronted with these facts, accused person surprisingly failed to challenge same under cross examination. His questions under cross examination largely bothered on why he was not sent to the scene of the crime which was not essential to the establishment of Prosecution’s case or otherwise. However, accused person denied admitting certain facts in his caution statement when he questioned Pw1 as follows; Q. When I got better you still did not take me to the scene? 2 A. That is true. By that time, I had already visited the scene and you admitted that you went there with the witnesses to commit the crime. Q. I never admitted going to the scene with the witnesses as you allege. A. Not true. You admitted you went there and even gave me directions to the scene. Was it therefore the case that accused person never admitted going to the scene? This can only be answered upon a perusal of the caution statement and further caution statement of accused person which were tendered and marked as Exhibits A and A1 respectively. A careful perusal of Exhibits A and A1 confirm the following; i. That accused person knew the location wooden structure where the bags of cement were kept. ii. That accused person knew for a fact that bags of cement were kept in the said structure. iii. That accused person went to the scene to steal the bags of cement. iv. That accused person did convey at least 9 bags of cement into the tricycle. Exhibits A and A1 are confession statements and a perusal of same indicates that they conform to the requirements of the law as provided in section 120 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). This Court finds no basis therefore not to rely on same. Moreover, the said statements were tendered into evidence without objection by accused person and he cannot be heard to deny its contents presently. In his evidence in chief, accused person had this to say; “…I do not know the scene of the crime as the Investigator never took me there. I was told a tricycle rider alleged that I hired him to convey the alleged cement but till date I have not seen the rider…” 3 This testimony of accused person however affords him no reasonable answer or explanation to his earlier statement given while in custody which were marked as Exhibits A and A1. Between his evidence and Exhibits A and A1 this Court is more inclined to believe his earlier statement as same was made closest in time to the occurrence of the incident when facts were far clearer in the mind of accused person than now. Accused person never indicated that he made the statements contained in Exhibits A and A1 out of duress neither did he alleged the absence of an independent witness. In summary, Exhibit A and A1 was clearly an admission of the offences and this established the case of Prosecution to the extent that its failure to call the tricycle rider and his companion to testify was not fatal to its case. The fact that the wooden structure was broken into as evidenced Exhibit C1 and nine (9) bags of cement conveyed from it by accused person as confirmed by Exhibit A1, Prosecution had duly established the offences of causing damage, unlawful entry and stealing beyond reasonable doubt. Accuse person is therefore found guilty on all counts and hereby convicted. Accused is sentenced on each count as follows; On count one, accused is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 20 days in hard labour, on count two accused is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 20 days in hard labour and on count three accused shall serve a term of imprisonment of 40 days in hard labour. Sentences to run concurrently. This sentence in this suit shall run concurrent with the sentence imposed on accused person in suit with number BR/SY/CT/49/2023 which was read earlier this day. 4 SGD H/H CHARLES KWASI ACHEAMPONG ESQ. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE - GOASO 5