S v Owusu (806/23) [2025] GHADC 109 (30 April 2025)

_**IN THE DISTRICT COURT LA ACCRA HELD ON WEDNESDAY 30**_ _**TH**_ _**APRIL, 2025 BEFORE HER WORSHIP ADWOA BENASO ASUMADU-SAKYI SITTING AS MAGISTRATE**_ _**CASE NO: 806/23**_ **THE RPUBLIC** **VRS** **ERNEST OWUSU** **ACCUSED PERSON present** **PROSECUTION: Chief Inspector Samuel Doe for the Republic** **JUDGMENT** _**INTRODUCTION**_ The accused person was arraigned before this Court on the charge of Stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) on the 26th of January, 2023. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hearing commenced on the 2nd of September, 2024 and was completed on the 2nd of April, 2025. _**FACTS OF THE CASE**_ The facts leading to the institution of the instant criminal action were largely captured in the narration of the prosecutor to the Court after the plea of the accused person was taken on the 26th of January, 2023 is that the complainant, Patience Kyerewaa’s boyfriend is a friend of the accused person. The complainant’s brother who lives in Kade in the Eastern Region informed her that he wanted to send her money for her to purchase some building materials for masonry work on his building project in Accra. He decided against sending the money through mobile money to avoid paying charges and rather informed the complainant to send him the bank details of her boyfriend so he would `deposit the money into his account. Unfortunately the complainant’s boyfriend did not have a bank account and as a result he suggested the money be deposited in his friend’s bank account. This friend of the complainant’s boyfriend was the accused person and he agreed to allow the money to be deposited into his account. The accused person gave his GCB bank details to the complainant and she sent same to her brother who then deposited an amount of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 10,000.00). Accused person after withdrawing the money went into hiding and as a result a complaint was lodged against the accused person at the Osu police station and he was arrested. Accused person admitted that he had cashed the Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 10,000.00) and that he had used it to settle his debts. An amount of One Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 1,000.00) was retrieved from the accused person’s mobile money account and the accused person was charged with the offence of stealing and arraigned before this honorable court. _**BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES**_ It is trite law that in criminal cases, prosecution has the burden to proof the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt and this is enshrined in Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution which provides as follows; A person charged with a criminal offence shall: Be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty. Section 11 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) also provides as follows; 11\. Burden of producing evidence defined (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue against that party. (2) In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to a fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. (3) In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the accused as to a fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires the accused to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could have a reasonable doubt as to guilt. (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence, leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence. Section 15 of NRCD 323 also provided as follows; Unless it is shifted, 1. the party claiming that a person has committed a crime or wrongdoing has the burden of persuasion on that issue; With the above provisions in mind it is clear that unless and until the burden of producing evidence and burden of persuasion is shifted this burden is on prosecution. Also the burden of persuasion on prosecution is discharged when the ingredients essential to guilt are proved sufficiently to establish a prima facie case against the accused and it is only when the burden has been discharged that the accused person is called upon to open his defence and provide evidence that is converse to the elements essential to guilt and by doing so raise reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. In the case of Banousin v. The Reoublic [2015-2016] 2 SCGLR 1232, the Supreme Court per Dotse JSC held as follows; “It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in all criminal cases. A corollary to the above rule is based on the fact that an accused is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law. This the prosecution can only do if they proffer enough evidence to convince the judge or jury that the accused is guilty of the ingredients of the offence charged. The prosecution has the burden to provide evidence to satisfy all the elements of the offence charged… the burden the prosecution has to prove is the accused person’s guilt, and this is a proof beyond reasonable doubt…. What “beyond reasonable doubt” means is that, the prosecution must overcome all reasonable inferences favouring innocence of the accused… the doubts that must be resolved in favour of the accused must be based on evidence…. The rule beyond reasonable doubt, can thus be formulated thus; - An accused person in a criminal trial or action, is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty.” See the case of Woolmington v. DPP and Ali Kassena v. The State _**ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE OF ADDUCED AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS**_ Before discussing the elements of stealing it is a trite principle of law that to constitute a crime, two elements must be established. These principles are the deed or act and the mental element which comes from the latin maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea which means an act does not itself constitute guilt unless the mind is guilty. Thus for an act to constitute a crime both the actus reus that is the act of committing the crime and mens rea which is the criminal intent of the accused person must be established by the prosecution. See the case of **Aning v. The Republic (supra)** and **Commissioner of Police v. Gaituah [1961] GLR 789**. I will reproduce the statement of offence and particulars of offence as follows; _**STATEMENT OF OFFENCE**_ _**STEALING: CONTRARY TO SECTION 124(1) OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT 1960 (ACT 29)**_ _**PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE:**__KWAME ANKOMANING, DRIVER :-_ For that you on the 17th day of January, 2023 at Osu in the Greater Accra Region and within the jurisdiction of this court, did dishonestly appropriate cash the sum of GHC 10,000.00 the property of Patience Kyerewaa. The offence of stealing has been defined in Section 125 of Act 29 as follows; A person steals who dishonestly appropriates a thing of which that person is not the owner. The ingredients to be proven in order to succeed on a charge of stealing were stated in the case of **Dramanu v. The Republic [1973] 2 GLR 37, Koranteng-Addow J. noted at page 381** as follows; In a case in which the accused person has pleaded “not guilty” the burden lay on the prosecution to establish all the three ingredients to the charge, namely: (1) that there was an appropriation, (2) that the appropriation was dishonest, and (3) that the accused was not the owner of the stolen thing. See the cases of **Brobbey and Others v. The Republic [1982-83] GLR 60; Lucien v. The Republic [1977] 1 GLR 351** Appropriation of a thing involves moving, taking, obtaining, carrying away, or dealing with a thing with the intent that a person may be deprived of the benefit of ownership of that thing, or of the benefit of the right or interest in the thing, or in its value or proceeds, or part of that thing. Dishonest appropriation has been defined in **Section 120 of Act 29** as follows; An appropriation of a thing is dishonest if it is made with (a) an intent to defraud; or (b) if it is made with by a person without a claim of right, and (c) with a knowledge or belief that the appropriation is without the consent of some person for whom he is trustee or who is owner of the thing, or that the appropriation would, if known to the other person, be without the consent of the other person. To constitute a dishonest appropriation of a thing, it is not necessary that the accused person should know the owner of the thing. It is enough if the accused has reason to believe that some other person, whether certain or uncertain, is interested on or entitled to, that thing as owner in that person’s own right, or by operation of law, or in any other manner. In the case of **Brobbey and Others v. The Republic [1982-83] GLR 60** , the court observed at page 615 that a “a person cannot be guilty of stealing unless he is proved to have appropriated a thing in the first place. Section 120(1) of Act 29 stipulates that an appropriation of a thing is dishonest if it made with an intent to defraud or if it is made by a person without a claim of right and with a knowledge or belief that the appropriation is without the consent of a person for whom that person is trustee or who is owner of the thing, or that the appropriation would, if known to the other person, be without the consent of the other person. In **Ampah v. The Republic (supra)** it was held that: “The failure to call an identified owner to give evidence of his lack of consent was not necessarily fatal on a charge of stealing. The crucial issue was whether the appropriation was dishonest which depended on the state of mind of the person doing the act amounting to appropriation. Whether an accused person had a particular state of mind was essentially a question of fact which had to be decided by the trial court. The facts disclosed in this case were entirely inconsistent with the conduct of an owner who would consent to the appropriation of his property. The facts, on the contrary, showed in no uncertain terms that if the Chamber had known of the appropriation by the appellant it would have protested”. It must be stated that to be guilty of stealing, the accused person need not be proved to have carried away the item stolen. It is not necessary in proving stealing to establish that the accused carried away the item stolen. It is sufficient if the accused treated the property in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s ownership of the property. See the case of **Aning v. The Republic [1984-86] 2 GLR 85** Firstly Prosecution has to proof that the accused person took, carried away or dealt with the complainant’s father’s money with the intent of depriving the owner of the benefit of ownership of that thing or of the benefit of the right or interest in the thing. Prosecution must then proof that the appropriation was dishonest and that the accused person was not the owner of the stolen thing. Prosecution tendered into evidence a copy of the deposit slip of an amount of GH¢ 10,000.00 into the accused person’s GCB Account dated 17th January, 2023 which was marked as Exhibit E. The Accused person failed to cross examine PW3 on Exhibit E and it is trite that when a party is given the opportunity to contest or lead evidence in defence of allegations against him but fails to avail himself of the opportunity, the court will be entitled to proceed with trail to its conclusion and make findings on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial and proceed to give judgment. In **Fori v. Ayirebi (1966) GLR 627 SC** __ it was held that when a party had made an averment and that averment was not denied, no issue was joined and no evidence need be led on that averment. Similarly, when a party had given evidence of a material fact and was not cross examined upon it, he need not call further evidence of that fact. See the cases of **Takoradi Flour Mills v. Samir Faris (2005-2006) SCGLR 890, In Re West Coast Dying Industry Ltd; Adam v. Tabdoh (1984-86) 2 GLR 561 SC and Watalah v. Primewood Products Ltd (1973) 2GLR 126 and Hammond v. Amuah (1991) 1 GLR 89 at 91.** From the foregoing I hereby hold that an amount of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (10,000.00) was deposited into the account of the accused person. The Accused person denied this assertion against him in his written statement dated the 19th of January, 2023 and which was tendered into evidence and marked as Exhibit C. I will reproduce relevant portions of Exhibit C as follows; “About two weeks ago, A friend called Joseph Owusu called me that he has a business to involve me in and I asked what the business is about and he said he has a man who is into galamsey and needed a gun to defend himself at the site. Well I know is illegal because I don’t sell guns so I asked him if he has any that could help him to secure the gun. At that point he opened up to me that he cannot produce the gun for him but he just want to use his mind to take the money from him and later made me act as the one to deliver the gun to him after he is done with the documentation. I asked my friend do you know this is an illegal business he said, he then told me he will be using my account to take the and when the money comes then we would share it 50-50 because no ones money and I agreed. A week passed and just last four days he called me that he is done with the fake documents to prove to the man that he can deliver the gun so the man has released the money into my account. Indeed the money came so I told him Joseph I want to remove your part and bring it to you so that I keep my part but he said no I should bring all so that he will tip me and from there I realized he want to play a smart one on me so I also decided not to give him the money at all because if there is tracing later I will face the charges. Today 19th June on my way to work my friend and his finance had a fight with me on the road and an officer saw us and sent us to a police station to make a statement”. Prosecution must therefore prove the accused person’s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt since he denied the allegations being leveled against him. Prosecution called three witnesses to testify in support of its case and PW1 who is in the person of Patience Kyerewaa testified on oath and said as follows on the 19th of March, 2024; 3\. On 16th January, 2023, my brother Bismark Osei who lives at Kade wanted to send me some money for his building project at Ofankor, Kasoa. I discussed it with my boyfriend Joseph Owusu who suggested that because he did not have a bank account, he would plead with his friend Ernest Owusu to let us use his bank account for the transfer of the money. 4\. My boyfriend Joseph Owusu then discussed the issue with the suspect Ernest Owusu and he agreed that his account could be used to transfer the money for the project for my brother. 5\. The suspect then furnished my boyfriend with his GCB account No. 1651010072768 and on 17th January, 2023, an amount of GH¢ 10,000 was transferred to it and receipt of transfer was forwarded to me. 6\. The suspect, Ernest Owusu, assured us that he would immediately inform us as soon the money hit his account. 7\. My boyfriend informed the suspect on the transfer of the money and he said he will check and confirm. He later confirms the receipt to the money but gives an excuse that per the bank rules, he cannot cash all the money at a go. When my boyfriend confronted him, that what he was saying about the bank limit of withdrawal up to only GH¢ 6,000 was false, he changed his statement that the money hasn’t come at all, that he was only joking that the money has come. 8\. I went to tell the suspect’s family member about the case and I was directed to his workplace. Together with my boyfriend, we went to his workplace and with the assistance of the police we had him arrested. Prosecution must therefore lead evidence to prove that indeed the accused person stole the Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 10,000) which was deposited into his account. The purpose of depositing the said money even if same is also a crime is not a defence to the offence of stealing. All prosecution must do is prove the ingredients of the charge of stealing. Although the complainant (PW1) was cross examined by the accused person a careful reading the record of proceedings makes it clear that the testimony of the complainant was not discredited. This is what ensued on the 2nd of September, 2024; Q. Before the day I received the money into my account have you personally conveyed the information to me that the money belongs to your uncle A. No. The money does not belong to my uncle but rather my brother and it was my boyfriend who spoke to you. Q. It’s your brother the one who intended to buy unregistered gun from me A. I have no idea about what you are saying Q. Were you there when Joseph Owusu and I discussed how to defraud the depositor of the money into my account? A. I was not there when this conversation took place. All I know is what I have stated in my witness statement From the above I hereby hold that PW1’s testimony was not discredited as she never wavered in her testimony and stood her ground. PW1’s testimony was corroborated by her brother, Bismark Osei, (2nd prosecution witness). PW2 mounted the witness box and relied on his witness statement on the 16th of October, 2024. I will reproduce the relevant portions of his witness statement as follows; 3\. On the 16th May, 2023, I made a request to my sister Patience Kyerewaa to send her some money for the building project at Ofankor. 4\. She then gave me GCB account No, 1651010072768 with account name Ernest Owusu. She told me the account holder is his boyfriend’s friend. And that I should send the money to it. 5\. On the 17th May 2023, I sent an amount of GH¢ 10,000 to Ernest Owusu’s account for my building project. 6\. I was informed later that Ernest Owusu cashed out the money and refused to give it out. The accused person cross examined PW2 On the 16th of October, 2024 and this is what ensued; Q. Do you have a valid I.D card with your name and picture on it to verify the deposit slip? A. Yes I do but I did not bring it and I have a receipt from the bank when I deposited the money Q. Who gave you my account number? A. It was my sister’s boyfriend who gave me the number and the name Q. What is the purpose of the money you deposited into my account? A. I deposited the money for a building project. From the above is clear that the accused person once again failed to discredit the testimony of PW2 and same will be accepted by this Court as the true state of facts. The next person to testify was the investigator; D/C/Inspector Ben Punalar (PW3) who mounted the witness box on the 6th of November, 2024 and relied on his witness statement as his evidence in chief. His testimony corroborated the testimony of PW1 and PW2. I will reproduce relevant portions of his witness statement as follows; 5\. Complainant narrated that she resides at Weija with the boyfriend as mentioned. That ... her brother by name Joseph Owusu Osei has a project in Accra, which he was developing but had gone back to the village to do farming. That his brother had made some money and wanted her to help him buy some building materials down for him to instruct his mason to go and work on the project. That the brother wanted to send the money through MTN mobile money and she said the charges will cost them so he should wait for her to enquire from the boyfriend if he has a bank account for him to pay the money into. 6\. Complainant added that she immediately told the boyfriend, but he told her he had no bank account and will tell a friend who has one to help them. That she was there when the boyfriend brought her a Commercial Bank account number and name of the holder and told her he collected from his friend Ernest Owusu. That she also sent same to the brother and the money an amount of GH¢ 10,000.00 was paid into the said account by her brother. That the brother informed her to tell the account holder to withdraw the money for her. 7\. That he then informed the boyfriend that the brother has deposited the money in the account so he should tell the friend to go for it. She mentioned that her boyfriend told accused about the money and accused went for the money but refused to give the money to her and went into hiding. That she and the boyfriend were looking for accused until they heard he was hiding in a hotel within Osu and they caused his arrest to the police station. 8\. The witness also narrated that accused is a friend that the girl friend told him the brother would like to send some money for her to do something for him and wanted him to give his bank account number to her to be sent to him to deposit the money in. that he told the complainant he had no bank account but will tell his friend whom he knows has some. That he gave his bank account number to him and he also gave it to the complainant. 9\. Witness added that when the money was deposited in the account and he informed accused person he went for the money and later on called him to inform him that he had the money but he will want to share it with the complainant equally and that he suspected the money was coming from a fraudulent source and if the complainant will not share with him he will not give it out. That he told him that it is not possible and made him aware the money was coming from the complainant’s brother in Kade. That accused went into hiding and refused answering his calls till he heard that he was in a hotel in Osu and he came with the complainant and caused his arrest to police station. 10\. During investigation, accused admitted such amount was deposited into his accounts as stated by the complainant and her witness and he withdrew same. That he had a deal with the witness that someone was in need of a gun to buy and will send him money so he want him to give his account for the money to be deposited into and when the money hit the account they will share it into two and later tell the man he bought the gun but police got him arrested and collected the gun. 11\. Accused added that when he gave his account and the money was paid into he withdrew it and made use of half before telling the witness that he had taken his share. There the witness told him he will not share with him anymore and was haunting him with the complainant and that was why he went into hiding. 12\. The complainant was made to inform her brother who deposited the money into the account and he came to police with the pay-in-slip for accused to know he was the person who sent the money. He made a statement and stated that he wanted the sister to do something for him and that was why he sent the money to her through the bank account she provided. This is what ensued on the 19th of February, 2025 during PW3’s cross examination by the accused person; Q. Did the officials there report to you that it was a quarrel between some people that you need to take their statements or they told you it is a report from the Complainant? A. He said it was a report the complainant lodged Q. Is it the complainant who told you they confided in me in using my account to deposit the money? A. No. The complainant and her boyfriend all gave statements who is a witness in this case and the boyfriend narrated that he is a friend to the witness in this case and the boyfriend narrated that he is a friend to the accused person. That the girlfriend told him the brother has a project in Kasoa. That he short of money and went back to the village. That he has gathered some money and want her to receive the money and buy him some building materials. And that he wanted to give the boyfriend’s account to the brother to deposit the money in. then the boyfriend told the complainant he has no account and that he has a friend who owns an account and that he is going to contact a friend and should he allow for him to use the account he will take it and give it to the girlfriend to be given to the brother so that the money will be deposited. That he contacted the accused person and he agreed. The account number was taken and the girlfriend forwarded same to the brother and the money was deposited into the account. This is what I was told. Q. Is it the complainant and the boyfriend who told you that I suspected the money is coming from a fraudulent source? A. No. It was the accused that alleged that the money was coming from a fraudulent source. I have carefully perused the record of proceedings and it is clear that the accused person failed to discredit the testimony of PW3. The accused person failed to challenge the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The burden on accused person is to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. I will now analyse the evidence adduced by the accused person. The accused person entered the witness box on the 2nd of April, 2025 by relying on his witness statement and he stated that the GH¢ 10,000 deposited into his account was for illegal reasons. I will reproduce the relevant portions of his witness statement as follows; 5\. Joseph Owusu informed me that he knew a man who owned a galamsey site. According to him, this man was facing security threats at the site and needed a firearm for protection. 7\. Joseph responded that he did not have any legal channels but assured me that the man had money. He further stated that he intended to deceive the man into giving him the money under the pretense of securing the firearm. 8\. I asked Joseph what role he wanted me to play in this scheme. He explained that, since the man trusted him, he could not execute the plan alone. He needed my involvement to make the deception more convincing. 11\. Joseph then outlined the process by which we would deceive the man into transferring GH¢10,000, after which we would share the money. 14\. On the 16th of January, 2023, Joseph Owusu called me and informed me that he had successfully convinced the man to proceed with the plan. He then requested for my bank account details. 15\. On the 17th of January, 2023, at around 10:00AM, Joseph Owusu called me again and told me that the man had deposited the agreed amount into my account. He asked me to verify the transaction. Upon checking, I confirmed that the money had indeed been credited to my account. 25\. Upon getting to the Osu Police Station, we all wrote our statements. I informed the police about what the complainant’s boyfriend had planned and wanted me to do. I also stated that he was falsely accusing me. However, I was still detained for further investigation. I have carefully perused the testimony adduced by the accused person during his cross examination on the 2nd of April and it is clear that he was unable to raise a reasonable doubt to his guilt. The accused person admitted that an amount of money was deposited in his account during cross examination. This is what transpired; Q. When the money was deposited in your account did you inform the complainant’s boyfriend? A. Yes I did Q. And did you specifically mention the amount deposited in the account. A. Yes I did Cross examination continued and this is what happened; Q. In your witness statement before this Honorable Court you made a wild allegation against the complainant’s boyfriend that the said money deposited in your account was to purchase some firearm. Do you still stand by that allegation? A. Yes I do Q. So as a security officer who was taught basic security techniques have you reported to the police about the intention of the money sent to your account A. No because I wasn’t sure whether it was true or not so I needed to confirm from the depositor of the money. Q. At this stage the money had already been deposited into your account so you knew the purpose of the money, did you report same to the police A. No because I did not have the relevant evidence from the depositor of the money to confirm whether it was true or not Q. As we speak now do you have an iota of evidence against the complainant’s boyfriend before this Court? A. At the moment no because I had a recorded voice of the calls we made but due to an unfortunate circumstance and me being in police custody a friend I entrusted with the duty to transfer the voise recording from my phone to me failed me. Everything that happened between us was verbal without a third party. The accused person failed to call this friend he claims to have entrusted this alleged voice recording between himself and the complainant’s boyfriend to corroborate his story was fatal to his case as decided in the case of **Tetteh v The Republic [2001-2002] and Gligah and Atitso v The Republic [2010] SCGLR 870, Manu v. Nsiah [2005-06] SCGLR 25.** The accused person also admitted he did not have any evidence before this Court to support his claim against the complainant’s boyfriend during cross examination as follows; Q. You said there was a conversation between you and Joseph regarding the allegation that said recording is enough evidence to make a report at the police station against the complainant’s boyfriend A. No because I had not heard from the depositor of the money to confirm whether what he said was true. Q. Technically there was no evidence to report the complainant’s boyfriend to the police. A. No Q. I put it to you that because you have not had any evidence about your allegation you could not make a case against the complainant’s boyfriend and there is no evidence before this court to back your claim A. Yes I do not have evidence because the depositor of the money told the Court he did not call me before he deposited the money into my account It is interesting to note that when he pressed further by prosecution, he stated that the agreement between himself and the complainant’s boyfriend was verbal. This is the very reason why he should have provided the Court with other forms of evidence such the video recording or the testimony of a witness to corroborate his testimony. This Court will therefore not accept his testimony as the true state of facts. The accused person also admitted during cross examination that he withdrew the money deposited in his account when he had not worked for same. This is what he said; Q. When you withdrew the money deposited in your account were you very much aware that you had not worked for that money A. Yes It is trite that where an opponent admits a fact in issue the other party need not proof that fact. Admission is defined by the 7th edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary as a voluntary acknowledgment of the existence of facts relevant to an adversary’s case. Justice Brobbey in his book, Essentials of Ghana Law of Evidence at page 112 explained admissions to mean the fact or issue which has been conceded and is no longer in contention. Also in the case of In Re Asere Stool; Nikoi Olai Amontai IV (Substituted by) Tafo Amon II v. Akotia Owirsika III (Substituted by) Laryea Ayiku III [2005-2006] SCGLR 637 at 656, which was quoted with approval in Fynn v. Fynn [2013-2014] SCGLR 727 at 738 the court held as follows; “Where an adversary has admitted a fact advantageous to the cause of a party, that party does not need any better evidence to establish that fact than by relying on such admission, which is an example of estoppel by conduct.” See the case of Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and Another v. Jake Obetsebi Lamptey and Another [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR With this admission by the accused person, prosecution needed not prove that the accused person dishonestly misappropriated the amount deposited into his account without the consent of the owner. It must also be noted that when the accused person realized that his case was falling apart he then resorted to requesting the court to conduct further investigations which is not the court’s duty. This is what he said during cross examination; Q. Per your witness statement filed and your responses under cross examination, there is a mountain of inconsistencies and contradictions and all these show that you are truthful to this Court A. I do not agree until further investigations by the Court. The court only duty is to analyse the evidence adduced and determine whether or not prosecution has met the burden on it or that accused person has raised a reasonable doubt to his guilt. I hereby make the following conclusions: That an amount of GH¢ 10,000.00 was deposited into the account of the Accused person by Bismark Osei (PW2) on the 17th of January, 2023. After this payment accused person refused to hand over the money to the complainant even though he had withdrawn same from his account. The said money did not belong to the accused person as he only gave out his account details with GCB so complainant’s brother could deposit the money for same to be used for his building project at Kasoa. The accused person’s refusal to hand over the money to the complainant was a dishonest appropriation of an amount of GH¢ 10,000 which deprived the complainant and her brother of their interest and benefit of same. From the foregoing, it is obvious that prosecution has been able to establish all the elements of stealing as when the accused person refused to hand over the GH¢ 10,000.00 to the complainant he deprived her and her brother the benefit of ownership of that thing or the benefit of the right or interest in the said money. I therefore conclude that prosecution has been able to proof beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused person committed the offence of stealing. There is also evidence on record that an amount of GH¢1,000.00 has been retrieved from the accused person and an amount of GH¢5,000 has been paid by his mother which brings the total amount retrieved to GH¢ 6,000.00. The accused person has also been in police custody since the 19th of August, 2024 and this being his first brush with the law I hereby sentence him to serve a prison term of two months on the sole count of stealing. **SGD** **H/W ADWOA BENASO ASUMADU-SAKYI** **MAGISTRATE**