AKOM vs. THE STATE [1966]DLSC1644

Date	1966-06-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1644

OLLENNU JSC

AKAINYAH JSC

LASSEY J.S.C.

ABOAGYE FOR THE APPELLANT.

S. M. BOISON PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY (WITH HIM AIKINS STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1644
																																						<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" >AKOM<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 454<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:
3 JUNE 1966.<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">

ABOAGYE FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

OLLENNU, AKAINYAH AND LASSEY JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LASSEY J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Lassey
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. On 12 November 1964 the appellant,
Kwasi Akom, was found guilty of the offence of the murder of one Akua Akyia on
12 May 1964 at Danso village in Ashanti after a trial before Attoh J. and a
jury in the High Court, Kumasi. From this conviction the appellant has appealed
to this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
hearing the whole of the evidence and listening carefully to the judge’s
summing-up the jury had no difficulty in coming to the unanimous verdict that
the appellant was guilty of the murder complained of and charged. However, in
this court the summing-up of the trial judge has been impeached on the ground
that it contained several misdirections or non-directions the cumulative effect
of which was that it caused considerable confusion in the minds of the jury,
and consequently led to or resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
recorded evidence led at the trial showed clearly that it was the appellant who
inflicted the bodily injury which eventually caused the death of the deceased;
the appellant himself admitted that fact both in his statement made to the
police, exhibit C, and in his evidence given on oath at the trial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
prosecution established by evidence that on Wednesday 13 May 1964 the
appellant, the deceased Akua Akyia and other people, including some of the
prosecution witnesses who gave evidence at the trial, attended the performance
of the funeral ceremony for one Afua Atta who had died earlier; after the
funeral celebration, the deceased, together with some of the prosecution
witnesses herein, retired to the house of one Kwame Krah, the prosecution’s
third witness, to listen to the music of an accordion instrument played by the
said third witness for the prosecution in his house at the village; the
evidence was that the appellant also went to the third witness for the
prosecution’s house to listen to and enjoy the accordion music, and sat nearest
to where the deceased Akua Akyia had sat on a verandah in the said third witness
for the prosecution’s house. Altogether it was stated on the evidence that
there were about ten people who had assembled in the third witness for the
prosecution’s house for the purpose of enjoying the music from his accordion
instrument. While the guests, among whom were the appellant and the deceased,
were all seated and enjoying the tunes flowing from the third witness for the
prosecution’s instrument, suddenly and without any provocation from any
quarter, the appellant, who sat nearest to the deceased on the verandah of the
third witness for the prosecution’s house, was seen sitting on top of the
deceased woman, his aunt, and cutting her throat or neck with a razor blade
which he had carried in the inside pocket of a pair of knickers he wore on that
day. The prosecution also led evidence to show that prior to the occurrence of
the incident, relations between the appellant and his late aunt the deceased
had not been cordial; the reason for this, the evidence revealed, was because
the deceased was at one time opposed to the appellant being installed as the
odikro of the village, a customary position in the village which the appellant
himself admitted on the evidence he once held but later had to abdicate.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Against
this version of the events which the prosecution alleged occurred in Kwame
Krah’s house on the date mentioned in the charge, the appellant, while
confessing that he killed his aunt the deceased, denied that he did so
intentionally as the prosecution tried to establish. Both in his evidence on
oath which he gave at the trial and in his caution statement which he made
voluntarily to the police when he was arrested and charged with the present
offence, the appellant endeavoured to put forward a case that the killing was unintentional,
and that he used the blade mistakenly or accidentally. He developed his case by
explaining that the fourth prosecution witness, Kofi Dwumfuoh, and some others
assaulted him, set upon him, the appellant, and beat him up mercilessly; he
stated that a misunderstanding had previously arisen between him, the
appellant, and the fourth prosecution witness over his, the </main>