ASARE ALIAS FANTI vs. THE STATE [1964]DLSC1869

Date	1964-02-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1869

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

OLLENNU JSC

BLAY J.S.C.

[1964]DLSC1869
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ASARE ALIAS FANTI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 70<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
29 FEBRUARY 1964.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, OLLENNU AND BLAY
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Ollennu
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted by the
High Court, Sekondi, of the murder of his wife, one Afua Ampomah. The crime was
committed in the village of Kramokrom on the night of 15 September 1962.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the case for the prosecution, the appellant who had, within the three weeks
immediately preceding the crime, begun to suspect his wife of flirting with one
Sulemanu Moshie, took leave of his wife at about 8 p.m. on the said 15
September 1962, allegedly to go out hunting, taking with him his single
barrelled shot gun, some cartridges, a cutlass and his animal skin hunting bag,
but leaving behind his hunting lamp. He had earlier that evening sent his
step-daughter, the eldest child of the deceased, and his own first child by the
deceased, to spend the night with their neighbour and friend, a woman popularly
known as Mami Fanti; this was nothing unusual. The appellant returned to the
house a short time after he had left, apparently to collect the hunting lamp,
but as he arrived, he entered into the room where his wife and their two young
children were, and began to quarrel with the wife alleging that he had seen
Sulemanu Moshie come out of the room. In the course of the quarrel the
appellant threatened the deceased with a knife; thereupon the deceased ran out
of the room, the appellant took the gun and chased her with it. In the course
of the chase the deceased turned round, just then the appellant fired at her at
very close range and killed her instantly.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defence put up at the trial is that the death was caused accidentally. The
appellant alleged that he had returned to the house to collect his lighter,
that when he was entering the house he saw Sulemanu Moshie going out, that he
questioned the wife about it but she denied that anyone had been in the house;
he said that an altercation ensued, during which he left the house going to
report the incident to their neighbour and friend the said Mami Fanti. The
appellant said he carried the loaded gun on his shoulder all that time, and
that on his way to Mami Fanti’s house, the deceased followed him, caught hold
of the muzzle of the gun from behind him, he and the deceased then struggled
over the gun, during which the gun accidentally went off and killed the wife
there and then.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
for the prosecution depended upon (1) evidence of an eyewitness, a child of
tender years, the tenth prosecution witness given not on oath; (2) evidence of
some of the villagers who heard the report of the gun followed immediately
thereafter by the alarm raised by the child of tender years, and rushed to the
spot immediately; these include the eldest child of the deceased, step-daughter
to the appellant, the said Mami Fanti, the third prosecution witness, and the
Odikro of the village the fifth prosecution witness, who caused the appellant
to be placed under custody, and had him handed to the police; and (3) a caution
statement made by the appellant to the police the day after the incident, when
he was charged with the offence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
dealing with the grounds of appeal and the submissions made by both counsel in
respect thereof, we wish to draw attention to two matters. The first is with
respect to a statement the appellant was alleged to have made to the police
when he was taken to the police station upon directions of the Odikro, with a
report that he had killed his wife. According to a police sergeant, the
appellant was cautioned, and thereupon he made a statement saying inter alia
that he had killed his wife because he suspected she was flirting with someone.
Although this statement was alleged to have been made at the police station and
after due caution, the same was not recorded, and no notes of it appeared to
have been made anywhere. The explanation the sergeant gave for this
extraordinary action is that, “police do not record preliminary investigation
statements of accused persons.” In respect of this matter the learned judge
directed the jury as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“It is
only when the police have decided to charge an accused person and that an
accused has been duly charged and cautioned that anything he says is then put
down in writing. That is the regular practice and procedure used by the police
and I charge you to take cognisance of and to accept it as the prevailing
practice.”<o:p></o:p>