The Republic v Badu (BR/KD/DC/B4/08/2025) [2025] GHADC 262 (19 March 2025)

INTHE DISTRICTCOURTHELD ATKWAME DANSOONWEDNESDAY THE 19TH OFMARCH2025.BEFORE HER WORSHIP, CYNTHIA ADEI ANDY ESQ.(DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) SUITNO.: BR/KD/DC/B4/08/2025 THE REPUBLIC VRS. BADU JOHN J U DGME NT Accused person was charged with the offence of assault: contrary to section 84 of the Criminal offencesAct, 1960,(Act29). Particularsofoffence: BaduJohn; Age44and farmerfor thatyouon2ndSeptember, 2024 at about 8:00 am at Bassa near Kwame Danso in the Sense East District in the Bono East Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this court you unlawfully assaulted oneYeboahPhilip. Facts of the case is that the complainant, Yeboah Philip, age 32 is a farmer and resident at Bassa whiles accused person is also a farmer and also a resident of Bassa. On the 2nd day of September, 2024, complainant went to his farmland to spray it, and whilst he was in the process of the spraying, accused came to the place with one other and accused him of trespassing on his land and without any provocation assaulted him. Complainant with a torn shirt and bruises on his face went to the Bassa Police station and made a report to them. Accused was arrested and according to prosecution, confessed the crime inhis cautioned statement. 1 Accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge and prosecution were asked to prove their case after disclosures have been served on the accused person and case management conference conducted. Prosecutioncalled three witnesses. First prosecution witness was Yeboah Kwaku Philip (PW1). He was the complainant. In his witness statement which he identified and relied on as his evidence in chief, PW1 stated that his father Kofi Fadi gave him the disputed land. The land is located at Aketeso, near Bassa. Onthe 31stday ofAugust, 2024,he visited the said farmer land and applied some weedicide for the purpose of preparing for the 2025, farming season. That he could not finish the spraying so on the 2nd day of September, 2024, he decided to go and continue with the application of the weedicide on the remaining portions. According to PW1, in the company of his uncle Yaw Sekyere, his children; Elvis Yeboah, Dorothy Yeboah they set off to the farm. PW1 said they saw the accused person, one Alhaji, one Julius and Busugna Agege at Busugna’s farm. The said farm is close to the PW1’s farm. PW1 stated that when they got to his farm, the accused person approached them, carrying a spraying machine and weedicides. The accused person then asked him (PW1) not to continue with the work he had come to do which was application of weedicide and also commanded them to leave there with immediate effect, claiming ownership of the land. PW1 stated that he responded by telling the accused person that he was not going to leave a land that his own father who is the original owner had given to him. According to PW1, accused then mixed water and weedicide and started applying the mixture to the area he (PW1) had sprayed earlier. PW1 said he approached the accused person to stop what he was doing and the accused became extremely offended and and punched him (PW1) in the mouth. According to PW1, this nearly resulted in a physical fight between them but Busugna and uncle his intervened and separated them. After the separation, PW1 said he saw that he was bleeding in the 2 mouth. He left the scene and made a complaint to the Bassa Police. He was issued with a medical form to attend hospital. He returned the endorsed medical form to the police thesame day. Second prosecution witness (PW2), was John Denteh, a teacher also staying at Bassa. He is PW1's uncle. PW2 said he accompanied PW1 to go and spray his farm on 2nd September, 2024. The complainants' two children also went with them. He said on their way, they saw the accused person and three other persons at Busugna Agege’s farm. PW2 said ongetting to PW1’sfarm, he observed that part of it has already been sprayed. When theystartedmixing their weedicide tostart work,the accused personapproached them and asked PW1 not to go ahead with the spraying since the land belongs to him. According to PW2, this did not go down well with PW1 and it resulted in an argument between the two. PW2 said the accused person then filled his machine with water PW1 had fetched, mixed it with weedicide and wanted to re-spray the area the PW1 had sprayed earlier on. According toPW2, PW1 then approached the accused personto stop what he was doing. Accused became offended and an argument ensued between the two which even attracted Busugna to the scene. Accused then rushed on the complainant and slapped him on the face. It took the intervention of Busugna and himself (PW2) to separate the two. PW2 said immediately after, he saw that PW1 was bleeding fromthemouth. PW1 thenleftthe scene. Final prosecution witness (PW3) was NO. 52629 G/CPL Mac Tsekpo. A detective stationed at Bassa Police station. PW2 stated that on 2nd September 2024, an assault case was referred to him for investigations. That during his investigations, he issued Police medical form to the PW1 who was bleeding in the mouth and also collected statements from PW1 and PW2. According to PW3, the medical form was returned endorsed. He also said he took photograph of PW1 to show the bleeding. PW3 said accused person reported at the police station on 6th September after several attempts at arresting him 3 has proved futile. After further investigations, PW3 said he was instructed to charge the accused persontoappear beforecourt. PW3 tendered exhibit “B”, the investigation cautioned statement. It was objected to by the accused person but ruling on the objection was postponed till judgment. The basis of the objection was that he did not say that he hit the PW1. Prosecution explained to the court, that he explained the content of the statement to the accused person before the accused person put his mark on it. Accused said he is an illiterate. The statement was a confession. Since the accused claims he is an illiterate, an independent person should have done the explanation and not the investigator. On this basis, the accused’s objectionisupheld and exhibit “B”expunged fromthe records. Prosecution tendered exhibit “C” which was the charged statement. PW3 tendered an endorsed medical form as his next exhibit “A”. The final exhibit tendered was a photographtakenofPW1 by thepolice and it shows PW1with ableeding mouth. After the close of prosecution’s case, the court made a determination that a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution against the accused person. The Accused person was then ordered to open his defence. Accused opted to speak on oath in his defence ofthe case against him. Accused person denied the charge against him. He stated that on 1st August, 2024, he visited his farm and saw that someone had fetched water in containers. According to him, his investigations pointed to PW1. Accused person said he sent a message through oneOpanin Kwadwo Fordjour toPW1 togoand removethe containersfromthereas he (Accused person) intends to prepare his land for cultivation that year. Accused person stated that he has been working on the land since 1999 without any problems. That the land was acquired by his late father, E.K. Badu. That his late father with support of his children and wife worked on the land for about 20 years. That his father handed over 4 the land to him when he could not continue with farming work as a result of old age. That the land gifted to him and the PW1’s land were separated by a mushy area. That thetwo lands don’tshare adirect boundary. That on the day of the incident he went to the farm in the company of three others to go and apply weedicide. Whilst there, PW1 and three other persons also came around. Accused person said as he was preparing to start spraying, PW1 rushed to where he had placed his bottles of weedicide and started pouring them away. Accused said he went to stophim frompouring the second bottle of weedicide away. That he did not lay hands onPW1. Accused only witness was Agege Busugna. A farmer also resident at Bassa. DW1 stated that on the day of the incident, he accompanied the accused person to his farm. While they were there and preparing to start spraying weedicide, PW1, PW2 and two others also came there with the purpose of spraying the same land the accused person intended to spray. According to DW2, an argument ensued as to the ownership of the land between the two. PW1 then went to where the accused had placed his weedicides and started pouring them away. According to DW1, the accused person rushed to the PW1 to prevent him from destroying the remaining weedicides. That he did not see the accused personlayhis hand onthe complainant. In a criminal case such as this, the prosecution bears the persuasive and evidential burdens toprovethe guilt oftheaccused person. In the case of COP vrs Antwi (1961) GLR 408, it was stated that the position of the law is well settled that there is no burden on the accused in a criminal trial. If there is any burden on the accused, it is not to prove anything but rather to raise a reasonable doubt. It was further stated that it was a fundamental principle of law that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, while the evidentiary burden shifts to the accused only if, at the end of 5 the case for the prosecution, an explanation of the circumstances peculiarly within the knowledgeofthe accused personis called for. The standard of proof required of the prosecution in all criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow ofdoubt. Inthe case ofR vrsOjojo [1959]GLR 207,thecourt stated thatif at the close of the prosecution's case there is doubt as to whether the appellant committed the offence then the burden is not discharged.See also section 11(3)of Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD323) whichalso provides for proofbeyondreasonable doubt in criminalcases. Section 84 of Act 29 provides: a person who unlawfully assaults any person commits a misdemeanor. Section 85gave thedifferent kinds ofassault toinclude: a. Assault and battery. b. Assault without actualbattery, and c. Imprisonment. An assault is unlawful unless it is justified on one of the grounds mentioned section 31 ofAct 29.The justificationlisted under the said section include but notlimited to a. Of a necessity for the defense of property or possession or for overcoming the obstructiontothe exercise oflawfulrights; b. Oftheconsent ofthepersonagainst whomthe force is used. Section 86 defined assault and battery as: a person makes an assault and battery on another person, if without the other person’s consent, and with the intention of causing harm, pain or fear, or annoyance to the other person, or of exciting him to anger, that person forcibly touches the other person. 6 From the definition above therefore in order for a prosecution to succeed in proving assault and battery as is being alleged in this case, they must prove the following ingredients; 1.That therewas forcefultouch 2.That thetouch was intentional 3.That thetouch was unlawful 4.That it was donewithout the consent ofthecomplainant On the first issue as to whether there was forceful touch of PW1 by the accused person, PW1, stated in his witness statement that the accused personpunched him in the mouth when he tried to stop the accused from going ahead with the spraying. PW2 also said when PW1 saw the accused person trying to fill his spraying machine with the water PW1 had fetched, PW1 went closer to the accused to stop him from going ahead. Accused then became offended and slapped PW1 in the mouth. Exhibit “D” which was the photograph tendered by prosecution shows PW1 bleeding in the mouth. The report from the medical report which was contained in exhibit “A”, also shows that, PW1 reported at the facility with bruises on his lips and other parts of the face. Accused personand his witness denied hitting PW1. However,looking atthe evidence especially the medical report and also the photograph, it is clear that PW1 was hit in the face, specifically, the mouth, and since it was only the accused person herein that he had an encounter with, I am of the opinion that it was through the accused’s person forceful touchthatthe bruises occurred.I therefore find for theprosecution onthis issue. On the next issue about the intentionality of the touch, there is no doubt about it as the accused person himself said he tried to stop the PW1 from destroying his weedicide. So it wasanintentional movethat resulted in thetouch. 7 The touch was obviously without the consent of the PW1 as he claimed the accused did so in anangermode and withouthis consent. On the final issue as to the unlawfulness of the touch, as discussed above, section 31 of Act 29 gave the various instances by which force or harm may be justified. One of such instances is for the necessity for defense of property, possession or for overcoming the obstruction to the exercise of lawful rights. In the evidence, PW1 and PW2 said when they saw that the accused person was filling his spraying machine with the water fetched by PW1, PW1 went closer to stop the accused person from doing so. Accused person said PW1 actually went straight to where his weedicide was, poured out the content of one bottle and was about to pour the other bottle when he decided to stop him from wasting that one too. On the face of this explanation by the accused person, one may conclude that the accused may be justified in using force to stop his property which in this case is the weedicide from being wasted. However, section 32 of Act 29 also provided that the force used must be reasonably necessary for the purposes for which force is permitted to be used. Looking at the extent of the injury which is on PW1’s mouthand face, one cannot say that inan attempt tostopwastage ofaweedicide, punching of the perpetrator's face is justified. I therefore hold that the injury to PW1’s face is notjustified as such the assault onPW1 was unlawful. From the findings above therefore, prosecution has been able to prove their case according to the standard required of them which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accused personis therefore guilty ofthecharge ofassault and therebyconvicted. …………………………………… H/W CYNTHIAADEIANDYESQ. (DISTRICTMAGISTRATE) 8 9