BUOR vs. THE STATE [1965]DLSC1790

Date	1965-01-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1790

MILLS-ODOI JSC

ACOLATSE JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

K. A. SEKYI STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLSC1790
																																						<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" >BUOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 1<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:
22 JANUARY 1965.<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">

APPELLANT IN PERSON.<o:p></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">

MILLS-ODOI, ACOLATSE AND SIRIBOE
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SIRIBOE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Siriboe
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. On 28 November 1964 we allowed this
appeal and reserved our reasons to be given later which are as follows: The
appellant and one other named Emmanuel Ofosu were jointly charged before the
Circuit Court, Ho, with one count of conspiracy to steal, and another count of
stealing the sum of £G4 10s. the property of one O. K. Awuma. The particulars
of the charges state that during the month of October 1963, at Ho, the two
accused agreed together with a common purpose to commit a crime, to wit
stealing, and did steal the amount in question. When they appeared before the
circuit court presided over by Judge Amarteifio, the first accused Emmanuel
Ofosu pleaded guilty to both counts and was accordingly convicted on his own
plea and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour on each count,
the sentences to run concurrently. The trial thereafter proceeded against the
appellant who had pleaded not guilty to the two counts.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
hearing four witnesses for the prosecution including the first accused (the
first prosecution witness) and also the defence, the learned circuit judge held
that because the actual offence of stealing had been committed, the first count
of conspiracy ought not to have been added to the second count. He therefore
acquitted and discharged the appellant on that count. With regard to the second
count, he held 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">“I am
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and find as a fact that the accused [i.e. the
appellant] and the first witness for the prosecution stole the money together
with a view to refund it later. I do not believe the accused’s story that he
never knew anything about this case. I therefore find the accused guilty and
convict him.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dissatisfied
with this decision, the appellant appealed to the High Court, Ho, upon grounds
argued by him personally, which in our view went to the root of the whole case;
yet he lost his appeal. He therefore appealed to this court-this time on one
ground only, namely, “Insufficient evidence to support the conviction.” As we
were in agreement with the ground filed, upon our perusal of the record of
proceedings, we called upon the learned state attorney to support the
conviction. After stating that the only issue before the court was whether
there was evidence which, if believed, was sufficient in law to support the
conviction of the appellant, the learned state attorney made the following
submissions:<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">“The
appellant was convicted solely on the evidence of the first prosecution
witness, an accomplice, after the learned circuit judge had duly warned
himself. That at the close of the evidence-in-chief of the first prosecution
witness there was insufficient evidence to support the charges.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Referring
to answers given by the first prosecution witness under cross-examination by the
appellant, he continued:<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">“However,
the deficiency in the evidence was supplied through cross-examination of the
first prosecution witness by the appellant. The first prosecution witness
having said that the appellant asked him to give him £G2 out of the £G4 10s.
for Awuma presupposes that the appellant had knowledge that Awuma’s money was
in the possession of the first prosecution witness.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned
state attorney, however, conceded that the first prosecution witness made
conflicting statements earlier, but he submitted that those conflicting
statements amounted to a mere denial of theft of Awuma’s money at a time when
that the</main>