The Republic v Kyei (BNE/TC/DC/B9/46/25) [2025] GHADC 260 (5 June 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GHANA HELD AT TECHIMAN ON THURSDAY THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE HER WORSHIP SANDRA XORLALI LAVISON, DISTRICTMAGISTRATE BNE/TC/DC/B9/46/25 THE REPUBLIC V KYEISAMPSON JUDGMENT The Accused person was charged with one count of cruelty to animal contrary to Section 303(1A)ofThe Criminal Offences Act, 1960,Act29. The facts of the case are that the Complainant, Kwame Yeboahis afarmer residing at Jamestown, asuburb ofTechiman. The Accused isalso afarmer residing at Abanimu asuburbofTechiman. The Accused hasbeen farming onaparcelof land situate near the house of the Complainant. Due to destructionof cropsin the farmofthe Accused person by stray goats and sheep, the Accused person has erected a fence around his farm to prevent stray domestic animals from getting into his farm to feed on his crops. On the 30th day of January, 2025 at about 6:30 pm the Complainant detected that one of his goatswhich went out with othergoats forgrazing did not come home. The Complainant combed the vicinity for the said goat but he could not trace it. On 31/01/2025 about 6:30 am the Complainant went to the farm of the Accused who had previously slashed one of his goats with a cutlass and saw his goat lying dead close toabowl containing some quantity of maize suspected to be mixed with apoisonous substance. The complainant rushed to the police station with the suspected poisonous maize and reported the incident. The police accompanied the complainant tothe crime scene and took photographs and commenced investigation. Inspection conducted on the dead goat revealed that the neck region was scavenged by dogs. The goat was subsequently conveyed to the veterinary service directorate for the cause of death to be ascertained. A Senior Animal Health Officer for Bono East, AbubakariAbdulRazak gavethe cause ofdeathas suspectedpoisoning. On10/02/2025, the Accused was arrested and detained toassist in investigations. The Accused in his investigation cautioned statement denied the offence. After investigation the Accused was charged with the offence and arraigned before this Honourable Court. The Accused appeared before the Court on 17/03/2523 and he pleaded Not Guilty to the charge, prosecution therefore assumed the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt required by law. The Prosecution called three (3) witnesses including an expert witness ie a vetinary officer from the VetinaryService, Techiman. The Accused persondid notcallany witness. THELAW The Learned Jurist and author, Brobbey JSC in his book: “Criminal Trials in the Courts and Tribunals of Ghana” at page 125 and paragraph 280 stated the burden of proofontheProsecutionthus: “In criminal trials the burden of proof in the sense of the burden of establishing the guilt of the Accused is always on the Prosecution and the failure to discharge that burden should lead to the acquittal of the Accused”. The above exposition of the law has received judicial approval in the case of Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462 where Lord Sankey L.C said:“But while the Prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner there is no such burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt.” See also Donkorv. The State [1964] GLR598SC. The above positionalso has statutoryfoundationinour law. Section 15 (1)of NRCD 323is apt onthe point. The sectionprovides asfollows: “Unless and until it is shifted, the party claiming that a person is guilty of crime orwrongdoing has theburden ofpersuasiononthat issue…” In discharging the burden of proof, the Prosecution is required by Section 11 (2) of NRCD 323 to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of all the evidence, a reasonable man could find the existence of the fact to be beyond reasonable doubt. One significant difference between criminal law and civil law litigation is that the prosecution in a criminal law matter does not win on balance of probabilities but only when the guilt of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt. This position of the law was espoused in the case of Oteng v. The State [1966] GLR 352where at354,the veryrespected Ollennu JSC said: “One significant respect in which ourcriminallaw differsfromour civillaw is, that while in civil law a plaintiff may win on balance of probabilities, in a criminal case the prosecution cannot obtain conviction upon mere probabilities. Evenin acivil case where the probabilities are equal, i.e. the case forthe plaintiff isas probable asthatfor the defence, theplaintiff must fail”. The burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt is always on the Prosecution. Section 13(1)of NRCD 323provides that: “Inany civil orcriminal action, the burdenofpersuasion as tothe commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, where the Accused is to discharge any burden, it is for him to createjust reasonable doubt perSection 13(2) ofNRCD 323. For Prosecution to succeed in convicting an Accused on the charge of cruelty to animal contrary to Section 303 (1A) of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29 one of the following elements must be proved; That the accused cruelly beat, kick, ill- treat, overload, torture, infuriate, or terrify an animal, or causes, or procures or being the owner, permits any animal to be used shall be guilty of the offence of cruelty to animal. In the instant Case Prosecution must prove that the Accused person did at least one ofthe elements listed above. The particulars of offence as stated by Prosecution states: Kyei Sampson, aged 59: farmer: married: for that you on or before 31st day of January 2025, in your farm, located at James Town, a suburb of Techiman in the Bono East region within the jurisdiction of this Court, you poisoned water mixed with maize and placed same in your farm which was consumed by a goat resulting to its death. The property of Kwame Yeboahvalued atGH¢1,500.00. Relating the above to the elements in 303 (1A) Section of Act 29, the fact of the instant case falls under the element of torture. Torture per Wikipedia is the deliberate infliction of severe pain and suffering; one may ask the motive behind the poisoning of the water? To answer that one will say It was obviously to inflict pain and suffering onthetargetobject. In the case of The state V Kwame Ezvalias Ahor Crim. App. No. 67/69, High Court Ho, 10 April 1970. It was held that “… The object of the legislature in enacting Section 303 (1) was not to prevent death but infliction of cruel and unnecessary suffering to animal." The whole tenor of the words employed emphasises this. A mode of killing that is instantaneous and inflicts minimum of suffering in clearly not contemplated by the section. The evidence of the expert witness shows that the goat went throughsome pain and suffering before it died. Now that it’s been established that the goat died from eating the poisonous substance, we proceed to establish whether or not it is the Accused that poisoned the goat. The evidence of PW1 is that his goats, ten (10) in number went out for grazing, that about 6:30pm only nine (9) of them returned home on the same day. That upon a search he found the goat dead in the Accused person’s garden and so he made a complaint to the Police. He was told by police to take the goat home because it may have been bitten by a snake, that after taking the goat home he decided to go back to the farm to ascertain more facts. That a search in the farm resulted in him finding a bowl containing maize mixed with chemicals believed to be poison. That he believes the poison was prepared by the Accused because he has always had issues with his goatsgoing tohis fenced farm. That was not the first time the accused had done something like that. That sometime ago his goat went to the Accused person’s fenced farm and he harmed it with a cutlass. He reported to the police and he was arrested, he admitted same and paid the cost of treatment of the goat. That these and many more are the reasons why the accused poisoned his goat. This evidence wascorroborated by PW2and PW3. At this juncture it must be reiterated that it is trite that in criminal matters the burden on prosecution is to prove its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt andnotonthe balance ofprobabilities. The threshold here is not ones believe or conviction but adducing enough evidence toprovethat indeed the crime was committed by the Accused person. PW1’s claim is that because Accused person has being complaining about his goat coming to his fenced farm to graze and also admitting in the past harming to harming his goat and paying for its treatment, then automatically finding a bowl of poisoned water with maize in the Accused person’s farm in the absence of the accused person means the Accused person committed the crime. It will not be farfetched to say PW1’s assertion is based on suspicion. In The State V Ali Kasena [1962] 1 GLR 144, the Court held that a multitude of suspicions does not amount to proof. There is evidence of poisoned water mixed with maize, there is also evidence of a dead goat as a result on ingestion of a poisoned substance however is there any direct evidence to prove that indeed the Accused person poisoned the water mixed with maize? It is not enough to allege that a goat is dead and a poisonous substance was found in ones farm and therefore the owner of the farm killed the goat and thereforeperson guilty ofthe offence he is beencharged with. One wouldask the following questions: 1. Did anyone see the Accused withthe poisonoussubstance used? 2. Wastherean eyewitness tothe preaparation ofthe poisonoussubstance? 3. Were the Accused person’s figure prints seen on the bowl containing the poisonousmixture? 4. Weresamples of these poisonous substance seen onthe Accused personor his home orhiddenin the farm? The absence of answers to these questions leaves more doubts in the mind of the court. The guilt of the Accused requires higher proof, proof will cause the ordinary man to be convinced without a shred of doubt that the Accused is guilty as charged. The court finds that Prosecution did not meet the threshold of proving the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court hereby finds the Accused not guilty of thecharge. The Accused is hereby acquitted and discharged.