AKURUGU FRAFRA vs. THE STATE [1966]DLSC1646

Date	1966-01-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1646

OLLENNU JSC

AKAINYAH JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

ADDO FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. N. K. TAYLOR SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1646
																																						<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" >AKURUGU FRAFRA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 12<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:
17 JANUARY 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">

ADDO 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 SIRIBOE JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AKAINYAH J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Akainyah
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted at the
Criminal Session of the High Court held at Tamale for the murder of his wife,
Akani Frafra. Against his conviction he appealed on the following grounds:<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">“(1)
Misdirection<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a) The learned judge failed in law to
direct the jury that short of believing the story of the appellant if the story
put forward would probably be true he was entitled to acquittal. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) The learned judge misdirected the
jury by omitting to direct the jury that it is manslaughter and not murder if
the accused would have been entitled to acquittal on the ground of self-defence
except for the fact that in honestly defending himself, he used greater force
than was reasonably necessary for his self-protection and in doing so killed
his assailant, i.e. the deceased Akani Frafra. (R. v. Howe (1958) 32 A.L.R.
212; (1958) A.L.R. 753; 100 C.L.R. 448.) (c) The learned judge also misdirected
the jury by failing to put the defence adequately to the jury. (2) The verdict
is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
for the prosecution is that on 25 January 1964, at about 2 p.m. while his two
younger brothers, Alevugia Frafra (the first prosecution witness) and Apibilla
Frafra, the second prosecution witness, were sitting under a tree about 80
yards away from their house, the appellant went to them holding a blood-stained
cutlass and told them that he had killed his wife, Akani Frafra, and that he
was going to report to the police. As a result of the appellant’s report, the
first prosecution witness ran into the house and there saw the body of the
deceased lying on the ground in a pool of blood with several cutlass wounds.
The first prosecution witness therefore raised an alarm and another brother of
theirs Ayambilla Frafra, the third prosecution witness, came to the house. The
first prosecution witness then chased the appellant and found him at the gate
of the Residency, the official residence of the Regional Commissioner for the Upper
Region. At the Residency the appellant who was still holding the blood-stained
cutlass told one escort police constable, Ali Busanga, the fourth prosecution
witness, on duty there that he had killed his wife. Constable Ali Busanga asked
someone to telephone to the police at Bolgatanga. Consequently Police Constable
Clement Akyea Ansah, the sixth prosecution witness, arrived at the Residency
and took the appellant and the cutlass away. The sixth prosecution witness then
visited the house of the appellant accompanied by the first prosecution witness
and saw the body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood with several cutlass
wounds described by him. On 27 January 1964 Dr. V. Milevanovic performed a
post-mortem examination on the deceased and submitted the following report
(exhibit N.):<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">“Head and
Neck: A deep incised wound approximately three inches in length is present on
the left cheek. A wound commences at the angle of the mouth and proceeds
upwards to about half an inch from the right ear. It has completely cut open
the mouth on that side. A cutting wound about six inches of length is present
below the thyroid cartilage. The wound appears to have been made by two strong
blows from a long sharp edged weapon. The first blow appeared to have severed
the trachea, both carotid arteries and both jugular veins. A second blow has
further opened the wound severing the oesophagus and penetrating to the spinal
column, but not cutting the latter. This wound proceeds upwards at the angle of
about twenty degrees and starts from just behind the carotid arteries. Another
cut wound about three inches in length is on the left side of the chest, just
below the left clavicle which does not penetrate into the thorax. Cause of
death is excessive bleeding through large neck vessels.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 28
January 1964 the appellant made a voluntary statement on caution (exhibit B) 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">“</main>