BARKAH vs. THE STATE [1966]DLSC1661

Date	1966-06-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1661

MILLS-ODOI JSC

SIRIBOE JSC

LASSEY J.S.C.

AIDOO FOR THE APPELLANT.

K.A. SEKYI STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1661
																																						<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" >BARKAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 590<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:
27 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">

AIDOO 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MILLS-ODOI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Mills-Odoi
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. We dismissed this appeal and
indicated that we would give our reasons later and, accordingly, we now give
our reasons. The charge against the appellant in this case was that he, on 21
April 1964 at Bebome village, near Asamama in the Eastern Circuit, murdered one
Idrisu Basare. The points which it is necessary for the prosecution to prove in
order to make out their case are not in doubt. The question as to this has
often been decided, and the rule is well established. It is not enough to know
that the appellant did the act which caused the death of the deceased. The
prosecution must show that the prisoner intended that his act would likely
cause or contribute to cause the death of the deceased. No one, therefore,
would be convicted of murder without proof of that intent. It has been decided
that the burden of proving these facts is on the prosecution. The difficulty is
to be clear in explaining a case of this kind to a jury and, in order to
succeed, the prosecution must make out these propositions.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
dealing with the points of law raised by learned counsel for the appellant it
is necessary to relate the facts surrounding the death of the deceased. The
case for the prosecution depended largely on the eye-witness account of Amadu
Wangara, the prosecution’s first witness, the appellant’s half-brother, and on
the confession statement which the appellant made to the police.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>About 7
p.m. on that fateful day, there was a quarrel between the appellant and his
half-brother over a loan in respect of which Kofi Laba the tenth prosecution
witness had stood surety. The lender demanded repayment of the loan from the
surety but the appellant advised him not to pay it as he was not directly
liable for repayment. Thereupon, the prosecution’s first witness told the
appellant that he had ill-advised the surety. He then accused the appellant of
being insolvent and added that it was because of his impecuniosity that he had
given such advice to the surety. The appellant was enraged by these remarks and
said his half-brother had disgraced him in the presence of his friends.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When the
prosecution’s first witness realised that the appellant had taken offence at
his remarks and that he was very angry he parted company with him and his
friends, lit a lantern he was carrying and started to walk to his village. Not
very long after he heard an unusual noise from behind and as he turned round he
saw the appellant who struck him on the forehead to the root of the nose with a
cutlass which he was holding. The prosecution’s first witness fell to the
ground but before the appellant could gain time to use the cutlass on him
again, the deceased appeared on the spot. In order to get him out of his way,
the appellant struck the deceased with the same cutlass and he also fell down.
The deceased was taken to hospital and died the next day.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When the
appellant was taken into custody in connection with the murder of the deceased
and cautioned he made a statement to the police which contained the following
passage:<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">&nbsp;“There is no trouble at all between the
deceased, Idrisu Basare and myself. He was my friend. It was all due to the
fact that when my brother Amadu Wangara alias Mensah Wangara came to demand my
debt in the night, hence I became annoyed an used the cutlass on the deceased
Idrisu Basare, who came to separate us. One Kwasi Mensah was present and he
helped me to convey the deceased who was then not dead to the police station
and make a report.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>