The Republic v Gyameah (B4/10/2024) [2024] GHADC 802 (31 October 2024)

SITTINGIN THEDISTRICT COURT ATWENCHI IN THEBONO REGION ON THURSDAY THE31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024BEFORE HIS WORSHIP ISSAH ABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) SUITNO B4/10/2024 THEREPUBLIC VRS GYAMEAHJANET @MAAFIA JUDGMENT The accused was put before this court on a charge of Assault contrary to section 84 of theCriminaland otherOffences Act,1960(Act 29). The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge after same was read and explained toherin twi. The court from the particulars of the offence and the facts as presented by the prosecutionset the following issues downfortrial; 1. Whether or not the accused assaulted the complainant by forcibly touching her withouther consent. 2. Whether or not the accused had any intention of causing the complainant any harm, painorexciting herto anger. 1 3. Whetherornot theactionofthe accused was unlawful. The facts as presented by the prosecution are that the complainant is one Am Kruwah age 32years and a farmer. The accused, Gyameah Janet @ Maafia is 23years old baker and both are residents of Nsawkaw in the Tain District. That on the 6th day of December 2023, complainant was on her bicycle heading towards the Nsawkaw township. That the accused met the complainant and held the complainant's bicycle and it grounded to a halt. That without a word of provocation the accused slapped the complainant in the face and slapped her (complainant) again for the second time. That the accused then toldthe complainant that; “I slapped you because it was reported to me that you fought my motherin the farm". Complainant reported the matter to the Nsawkaw Police where she was issued with police medical formto attend hospital. That the accused was arrested and in her caution statement to the police, she denied the offence but after careful investigations, she was charged accordingly and put before this court. The prosecution in establishing the charge against the accused called two (2) witnesses. The first prosecution witness (pw1) who was the complainant in the case said she is Ama Kruwah and that she is a farmer and lives at Nsawkaw. Pw1 said she knows the accused who is the daughter of her (pw1) auntie. The witness said on the 2nd day of December 2023, a fight ensued between her (pw1) and the mother of the accused person in the farm over a bunch of plantain. That the following day, 3rd December, 2023, the 2 accused then attacked her (pw1) in her house and caused damage to her (pw1) cooking utensils valued more than one thousand Ghana cedis (GH₡1,000.00) over the same issue. Pw1 said she reported the matter to the police at Nsawkaw and they started investigations with the case. The witness (pw1) said three (3) days later on the 6th day of December 2023 after this first incident, she (pw1) was riding her bicycle to buy something in the neighbourhood. That whiles on the bicycle, the accused bumped into her (pw1) and held the bicycle from the back and prevented her (pw1) from moving. Pw1 said she was forced to stop. Accused then slapped her (pw1) in the face twice and said to her; “I have slapped you and you can slap me back". Pw1 said when she refused to say anything to the accused, she said to her; "you fought my mother in the farm and thatis why Islapped you". That while the accused was still taunting her (pw1), one Felicia Konadu arrived at the scene and questioned accused as to what she (pw1) had done to warrant the beating and the accused replied that they have had a problem with her (pw1) over a parcel of farmland and thatshe (pw1) beat her (accused) motherover thesame issue previously. The second and final witness for the prosecution witness (pw2) was the police investigatorofthe case, Number 57944Lance CorporalMartin Adomah, stationed at the Nsawkaw Police Station. He told the court he knows the other prosecution witness as well as the accused person. That on the 12th day of December 2023, the complainant (pw1) reported a case of assault against the accused and the case was referred to him (pw2) for investigations. He then took statements from the complainant and witnesses and complainant was issued with police medical form to attend hospital for treatment. 3 Pw2 said he then invited the accused to the police station and obtained investigation cautionstatement fromher but the accused denied the offence in her statement. The said caution statement was tendered and marked as exhibit 'A'. that on the 6th day of December 2023, pw1 returned the police medical form which was endorsed by the medical officer. Same was admitted and marked 'B'. That police investigations revealed that the accused and complainant are cousins. That the father of pw1 was the biological brother of the accused's mother and that pw1 previously fought the accused's mother in the farm over a bunch of plantain. That this led to the accused mother sustaining some injuries. That due to that accused stormed the house of pw1 to attack her (pw1) and caused damage toher cooking utensils. That the police then started investigating that case. Then on the 6th day of December 2023 accused met pw1 in town and slapped her (pw1) many times in the face in the presence of a witness. That pw1 then reported the matter to the police for the second time, and the accused was arrested. The witness said he (pw2) was then instructed to charge the accused with the offence after police investigations. The charge statement wastendered and markedexhibit 'C'. After a careful evaluation of the case of the prosecution upon the closure of their case, this court took the view that a case had been made against the accused and she was called upon toopenher defence. Inherevidence-in-chief the accused persontoldthe court she is Gyameah Janet and that she lives in Nsawkaw and is a baker. That one Saturday morning whiles she was at 4 workplace, her mother told her she was going to the farm. The mother then left with one small girl. Then at around 3pm the little girl run back to her crying that the complainant herein (pw1) had beaten her (accused) mother the old lady and she was lying down. Accused said she rushed to the scene and saw her mother lying unconscious and bleeding. Shethen rushed her to the hospital and she was admittedfor three (3) days. Accused said she went to informher uncle and toldhim to gowith herto the complainant to find out what happened and she beat her (accused) mother. Accused said when they went the complainant did not give them any reason so he reported the matter to the police. That the police commander called them and said her (accused) mother was complainant's (pw1) auntie and so complainant should apologise to her mother but complainant refused and so they were asked to go and come back the next day. That when they went back, the commander said pw1 did not apologise so he was sending the case to court. That later the police called her (accused) and said the complainant (pw1) had lodged a complaint against her (accused), that she (accused) beat her (pw1). Accused said she told thepolice she did not beatcomplainant (pw1) and that complainant beat her (accused) mother and she reported the case tothe police. That the police later told her they were bringing the case to court. When cross-examined accused admitted that on the 2nd day of December 2023, she went to the house of the complainant (pw1) and that she went to find out what had happened between complainant (pw1) and her (accused)mother.Accused did notcall any witness. 5 Having examined all the evidence, it must be stated that the prosecution contended that there was a fight between the accused person's mother and the complainant herein (pw1) on the farm over a bunch of plantain and which fight resulted in the accused's mother sustaining some injuries. That this information got to the accused and thereby made the accused very upset with the complainant (pw1) for the reason that complainant foughther (accused) mother. This was the testimony of pw1, who is the complainant and which was corroborated by pw2, the police investigator as he said his investigations revealed and that also confirmed by the accused herself, when she (accused) told pw1 that after her (pw1) issue with her (accused) each time she (accused) sees pw1 she (accused) does not talk to pw1. This obviously reinforced the fact asstated by the prosecution that there was some bad blood between the accused and the complainant after the issue between the complainant and theaccused's motheronthe farm. Again it must be noted as canvassed by the prosecution that, due to this strained relationship between the accused and her mother on one side, and the complainant (pw1) on the other, the accused stormed the house of the complainant (pw1) in an apparent act of avenge for her mother and attacked the complainant and also caused damage to the cooking utensils of the complainant and the complainant reported the incident tothe Nsawkaw police forinvestigations. 6 This again was the testimony of the complainant and which was again corroborated in greater detail by the second prosecution witness (pw2), the police investigator. He told the court the complainant first reported the attack on her by the accused in her (pw1) house and the destruction thatthe accused caused to her(pw1) cooking utensils. The witness (pw2) noted that following report by pw1, the accused was invited by the police and the investigations were commenced onthe said attack. Here again, it must be stated that the accused never denied going to the house of complainant upon hearing of the fight between her (accused) mother and the complainant but only stated that she went to find out from the complainant why she (pw1) fight her mother on the farm. Indeed, it must be stated here again that the accused could not have gone to the house of the complainant (pw1) in a sober or friendly mode when she (accused) noted in her evidence that she got to the farm and saw her mother lying in blood and she (accused) carried her tothe hospitalwhere she (mother)was admittedfor three(3)days. So clearly her presence in the house of the complainant (pw1) was not for peace but to also show the complainant where power lies which was completely wrong and unnecessary. Also, it is important to observe that the prosecution asserted that whiles the attack by the accused of the complainant in her house was been investigated, the accused on the 7 6th day of December 2023 met the complainant in Nsawkaw town and slapped the complainant (pw1) many times in her (pw1) face and in the presence of a witness. This was what the complainant told the court and which was also corroborated by pw2, the police investigatorashis investigationsrevealed. Pw1 told the court on the said 6th day of December 2023 whiles she was on her bicycle moving towards the Nsawkaw township she met the accused on the way. That the accused held the bike from the back and pulled her to a stop. Accused without any provocation slapped her several times in her (pw1) face. That this then attracted the attention of one Konadu Felicia who was close by and she came and rescued the complainant. This again was confirmed by pw2, the police investigator who said his investigations revealed what pw1 said and that the said Konadu Felicia gave a statement to the police in which she confirmed that the accused stopped the complainant (pw1) and slapped her (pw1) several times in her face. I must state that the said investigation statement Konadu Felicia gave to the police was perused by the court and she confirmed that she saw the accused pull the complainant (pw1) who was on a bicycle to stop and then accused started slapping complainant (pw1) in the face but that thecomplainant did not slapthe accused back. Indeed, Konadu Felicia in that same investigation statement said she asked the accused the reason for her attack on the complainant and accused said she has a problem with the complainant over a parcel of farmland. It must also be stated that even though the 8 said Konadu Felicia file a formal witness statement with an indication to appear before this court to testify in addition to the investigation statement to the police, she however failed to come to court leading to the said witness statement she filed been struck out. It is therefore clear that the accused had not been happy with the complainant (pw1) herein because of the issue between her (accused) mother and the complainant on the farm. Finally, it must be stated that the failure of Konadu Felicia to testify in court in spite of her having filed a witness statement was not fatal to the case of the prosecution as she had earlier in the cause of the investigation volunteered a statement to the police and which statement is in evidence as part of the disclosures filed by the prosecution. And it is important to state that what is contained in the said investigation statement is a vivid account of what happened on the said 6th day of December 2023 and which was the unlawfulassault onthe personofthe complainant by theaccused herein. Fromthe evidence asadduced therefore, I found the following asfacts; 1. That the accused person's mother and the complainant had an issue on the farm overplantainprior tothe assault onthecomplainant. 2. That the news of the issue between the accused's mother and the complainant (pw1) gottothe accused andwhich theaccused was nothappy about. 9 3. That on the 6th day of December 2023 accused accosted the complainant in Nsawkaw town and assaulted complainant by giving complainant several slaps onher (pw1) face. 4. That the assault on the person of the complainant took place in the presence of a witness who rushed to therescue ofthe complainant (pw1). This case been a criminal one, the law in criminal trials is that the burden of proofin the sense of the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and failure on the part of the prosecution to discharge that burden must lead to the acquittal ofthe accused. Seethe case ofDonkorVs The State [1964]2GLR, 598Sc. It is also the law as was set out in the case of Yeboah Vs The Republic [1972] 2 GLR, 289 that "the guilt of the accused in a criminal trial must be proved with the degree of certainty thatis required by law". On the standard of the burden on the prosecution, section 11 (2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides that; "in a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that onall the evidence areasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt". Therefore, from the provisions of section 11 (2) of (NRCD 323) the standard burden on the prosecution in criminaltrials is provebeyond reasonable doubt. 10 Again, it must be noted that the offence of Assault is created by section 84 of Act 29 of 1960 which is the Criminal Offences Act of 1960. Section 84 states that; "whoever unlawfully assaultsany personis guilty ofamisdemeanor. Then section 86 of Act 29 defined the offence of assault when it provides that; "a person makes an assault and battery upon another person 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, he forcibly touches the other person, or cause any person, animal ormattertoforcibly touch him". From the facts and the evidence before this court, when the accused accosted the complainant and held her (pw1) bicycle and pulled her (pw1) to a stop, that was withoutthe consent ofthe complainant. And again without any provocation accused slapped the complainant severally on her face, that was also aclear act ofassault and battery, which waswrong and unlawful. From the evidence and the law as stated therefore, and on the basis of the findings of fact made, it is the conclusion of this court that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused and she has been found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly. The reasonforthe aboveconclusioninclude; 11 1. That the accused was angry with the complainant that complainant and accused'smother foughtonthe farm. 2. That the accused without any provocation from the complainant (pw1) met complainant in townand assaulted. 3. That the action of the accused was clearly unlawful as she took the law into her hands. 4. That the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and as required by law. Mitigation – on mitigation accused pleaded for leniency and stated that she is sorry for what she did. Accused is sentenced to a fine of 80 penalty units or in default six (6) monthsimprisonment. ……………………………. ISSAHABDUL-WAHAB (MAGISTRATE) 12