REPUBLIC VRS. ADEDZE (B4/04/2023) [2024] GHADC 658 (18 December 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ANLOGA IN THE VOLTA REGION ON WEDNESDAY THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024. BEFORE HER WORSHIP REJOICE ASEYE GADAGOE, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CASE NO.: B4/04/2023. THE REPUBLIC VRS VANCE ADEDZE JUDGMENT: STATEMENT OF OFFENCE: The Accused was arraigned before this Honourable Court on 2nd March, 2023; and was charged with the offences stated below: 1. Assault contrary to SECTION 84 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT, 1960 (ACT 29). 2. Threat of death contrary to SECTION 75 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT, 1960 (ACT 29). 3. Offensive conduct conducive to breaches of peace contrary to SECTION 207 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT, 1960 (ACT 29). PLEA OF ACCUSED: Accused, MR. VANCE ADEDZE, pleaded NOT GUILTY to all the Counts, which necessitated a trial. Trial eventually commenced on 21/06/2023. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: As presented to the Honourable Court by the Prosecution, Complainant, MADAM REBECCA BAKAH, is a hairdresser and the Accused, MR. VANCE ADEDZE is a teacher. Both Complainant and Accused reside at Whuti near Anloga. The Complainant and Accused’s wife, MADAM FELICIA EKUADZI (PW2), live in the same house at Whuti. 1 On 29/01/2023 around 5:30pm, one RITA SITSOFE DZAKAH (PW3), a co-tenant of complainant, went to inform Complainant in her shop that, Accused was beating his wife who was carrying a baby at her back. She further told the Complainant that, when she attempted to rescue the child, Accused insulted her to be a witch. Complainant quickly went to the scene and saw the Accused on top of his wife who was then lying in a prone position with the baby at her back. Complainant on seeing that, quickly went and took the child from the mother to a safe place whilst some neigbhours came to separate the fight. After the separation of the fight, Accused went to the Complainant and took his daughter from her. Subsequently, he subjected the Complainant to severe beatings. Neigbhours who were still around came to her aid and took her from the claws of the Accused. Afterwards, Accused threatened the Complainant that he would evict her from the house and kill her within 21 days. On same day around 9:00pm, Accused again went to the Complainant and hurled insults on her and other co-tenants with words to wit “Hasitorwo, Ame srↄ xorlawo” which literally means “Harlots, husband snatchers” and other offensive words. On 01/02/2023 around 7:35am, the Complainant came to the Police station, Anloga, and lodged a complaint. Police Medical Report forms were issued to her to attend hospital for treatment and report. On 6/02/2023, the Accused reported himself at the Police station pursuant to an invite and was detained for investigations. Investigation cautioned statement was obtained from the Accused and after the investigations; he was charged with the offences as stated on the charge sheet and arraigned before this court. In all, the prosecution called four (4) witnesses. CASE OF THE ACCUSED: The Accused in his defence went on straight to accuse the Complainant, Madam REBECCA BAKAH (PW1) of threat, physically assaulting him, and also separating him from his family. He said PW1 is in the habit of intentionally demeaning him and thanks to her actions, the love, unity and understanding in his home have waned. 2 Accused stated in paragraph “6” of his witness statement that it was rather the complainant who used her fist to rain blows on him, tore his dress, strangled him, and pushed him against the wall, leaving him dazed. Accused stated further that, he sustained minor injuries, caught fever and vomited blood. Prior to the instant case, Complainant had chased him with a club in the past. Accused denied ever assaulting the Complainant, Madam Rebecca Bakah. Accused said he first met complainant in 2018. For some reason, complainant tries to attack him at any given opportunity. She interferes in his marital affairs, assaults him verbally and even insulted the mother of Accused. Finally, Accused complained quite bitterly about how the investigations were carried out and even said the Investigator did not do a “diligent work”. Accused called two witnesses. His biological Mother and Daughter. Unfortunately for him, none of the two was present at the crime scene when the reported incident took place. EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE: SECTION 75 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT, 1960 (ACT 29) AS AMENDED; defines threat of death as follows; “A person who threatens any other person with death, with intent to put that person in fear of death, commits a second-degree felony”. The elements present here are:  “There must be a threat to kill issued against the Complainant;  There must an intent to put the complainant in fear of death; and,  Whether or not the Complainant feared when the threat was communicated to him or her”. The most fundamental element is for the Honourable Court to determine whether or not the words were uttered by the Accused. SECTION 84 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT, 1960 (ACT 29); provides as follows: 3 “84. Assault A person who unlawfully assaults another person commits a misdemeanour”. Again, SECTION 207 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT, 1960 (ACT 29); defines Offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace as: “207. Offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace A person who in a public place or at a public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or by which a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, commits a misdemeanour”. The maximum sentence for an offence that is classified a misdemeanour is three (3) years in prison. Below are the various testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3: PW1: PW1 was the complainant, MADAM REBECCA BAKAH. Her evidence in-chief was that, on 29/01/2023; she was in her shop when PW3 came with a “report” that the Accused was beating his wife. She went to the crime scene but stood at the “exterior” to the house. From there, she saw the Accused on top of his wife, PW2, who was then lying on the floor with a Baby at a back. PW1 stated that she quickly rushed to the house, and managed to take the child from the back of Accused’s wife. After the couple was separated, Accused came and took his daughter. In paragraph “8” of her witness statement, she stated the following, “that Accused later returned to where I was standing where he held my neck and subjected me to severe beatings”. Meanwhile, in an earlier statement to Police, PW1 had stated that, a woman came to tell her the Accused and his wife, were fighting. She got to the scene and saw the Accused beating his wife (PW2) whilst she was carrying a baby at her back. PW1 said she untied the baby from PW2’s back. 4 “Sooner had I removed her child than the suspect pounced on me, held my neck „fightly‟ (tightly) and we both fell down in the sand. Some guys came to my aid and took me from his claws”. PW2: PW2 was the Accused’s wife, MADAM FELICIA EKUADZI. She stated the following in paragraphs “13” and “14” of her witness statement: “That the complainant handed my daughter to him, and I subsequently went to the accused and took my daughter from him thereof. That accused later advanced on the complainant and they both engaged in a fight hence some neighbours who were still around came in and separated them”. PW3: PW3 was SITSOFE DZAKAH RITA. The evidence of PW3 became very crucial to the Honourable Court at this stage. She witnessed the altercation between the Accused and his wife at first hand, before going to invite the Complainant into the matter. Excerpts of her evidence-in-chief has been reproduced below: “Accused and his wife, who was then carrying her daughter at her back, came out of his room to my entrance and continued fighting. The Accused’s wife called me to come for her child but the accused insulted me to be a witch and further warned me not to near them. I quickly went to the complainant who was in her shop and informed her about the incident. That later on, the complainant came to the scene, pushed the Accused and managed to take the child away to a safe place. Whilst the accused was advancing on the complainant to take his daughter, he was still raining insults on the complainant. I left the scene. That, I later returned to the scene and I was told that the accused had assaulted the complainant”. PW3 dwelt a lot on the insults Accused was reported to have hurled on the Complainant and other tenants in the house including PW3 in her evidence-in-chief. 5 CONCLUSION: In OTENG V. THE STATE (1960) GLR; the Court held as follows; "The standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt". The Honourable Court shall proceed to benchmark the various proofs provided by the prosecution against the high threshold set in proving criminal cases. Count One: ASSAULT. After considering all evidence, this Honourable Court finds that, the charge of assault was not sufficiently proved against the Accused. PW1 averred that she was assaulted by the Accused and was rescued from his claws by neighbours. Accused on the other hand, told the Court that PW1 rather hurled blows at him and beat him up until he was dazed. PW2 should have witnessed the assault on PW1 if it had taken place because she was present at the scene throughout. Yet, PW2 stated clearly, that the Accused and PW1 were engaged in a FIGHT. Her testimony appeared to the Court to be a more accurate account and a confirmation of what the Accused and PW1 described as assault on them by the other. PW3 said she left the scene for the “township” because the Accused had become violent and was hurling insults around. On her return, she heard the Accused had assaulted the Complainant; but did not witness it. Count Two: THREAT OF DEATH. The second Count was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Two prosecution witnesses corroborated each other’s story on the threat Accused issued against the Complainant. PW1 and PW2 told the Court that Accused uttered the words: “I have given you 21 days, we shall see if you will be alive and still be in this town” to the complainant. PW3 on the other hand, did not speak to any threat issued against the Complainant by the Accused. 6 Count Three: OFFENSIVE CONDUCT CONDUCIVE OF THE BREACH OF THE PEACE. Count three was proved but against both the Accused and the Complainant. The Complainant shall therefore join the Accused in the Dock. Accused complained bitterly about how the Complainant has been intentionally demeaning him. That, thanks to her actions, the love, unity and understanding in his home have all waned. Complainant is strongly warned to seize and desist from the habit of meddling in people’s marital affairs and to mind her own business. In the well-known case of LUTTERODT V. COP (1963); The Court held that; "If the explanation of the Accused is not acceptable but reasonably probable, the Accused should be acquitted". There are too many doubts surrounding the first count of Assault which the Prosecution witnesses were not able to assist the Prosecutor to establish. In the end, that challenging burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt imposed on the Prosecution had not been fully discharged to sustain all the three Counts. ACCUSED IS HEREBY ACQUITTED AND DISCHARGED ON COUNT ONE -THE CHARGE OF ASSAULT. CONVICTIONS: 1. Accused has been found Guilty as charged in Count two. 2. The Accused and the Complainant have both been found Guilty on Count three by this Honourable Court. SENTENCES: 1. Count Two: 7 MR. VANCE ADEDZE IS SENTENCED TO A FINE OF 200 PENALTY UNITS. - In default of the Fines, Mr. Vance Adedze shall serve Eight (8) Months in Prison. 2. Count Three: MR. VANCE ADEDZE AND MADAM REBECCA BAKAH, ARE HEREBY CAUTIONED AND DISCHARGED. SGD. HW REJOICE ASEYE GADAGOE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 18/12/2024.  Representation:  DETECTIVE CHIEF INSPECTOR RANSFORD KWATEI PROSECUTED FOR THE REPUBLIC.  ACCUSED NOT REPRESENTED. 8