[1966]DLSC1666 • January 24, 1966 • Supreme Court •
BODUA ALIAS KWATA vs. THE STATE
The appellant was convicted by the High Court, sitting with a jury, for unlawfully and intentionally causing harm to Tetteh Bedu with an offensive weapon. The prosecution case was that the complainant, while following two men near disputed land, was attacked by the appellant with a cutlass and by another man with the butt of a gun. The defence was that the appellant had gone at about 3 a.m. to watch over palm wine pots which had repeatedly been broken; he saw the complainant break two pots with an iron rod, challenged him, was struck several times with the rod, and in the ensuing struggle used his palm wine tapping cutlass to ward him off and disarm him. The police evidence supported parts of the appellant’s account, including that the appellant reported first and that two palm wine pots were found freshly broken. Portion of judgment: “about one hour before the first prosecution witness arrived at the police station... the appellant had reported to the police...” and “the police visited the spot and found two pots of palm wine freshly broken.”
read moreJUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C. Ollennu J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted at the Criminal Session of the High Court, of the offence of use of an offensive weapon. Particulars of the offence as set out in the bill of indictment are that he “unlawfully and intentionally caused harm to one Tetteh Bedu with an offensive weapon.” The trial was a jury trial. Three main grounds were argued in support of the appeal. These are: “(1) the learned trial judge misdirected the jury by stating ‘If a rod was used, markings will be on the skin.’ (2) The learned trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately on the nature of the defence. (3) The learned trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately on conflicts and doubts in the prosecution’s story.” The only eye witnesses to the incident were the complainant and the appellant. The complainant, the first prosecution witness, deposed that while sitting in his house at about 4.30 a.m. to 5 a.m....