BODUA ALIAS KWATA vs. THE STATE [1966]DLSC1666

Date	1966-01-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1666

OLLENNU JSC

BRUCE-LYLE JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

OFFEI FOR THE APPELLANT.

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

[1966]DLSC1666
																																						<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" >BODUA ALIAS KWATA <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 51<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:
24 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">

OFFEI 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, BRUCE-LYLE AND SIRIBOE 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 at the
Criminal Session of the High Court, of the offence of use of an offensive
weapon. Particulars of the offence as set out in the bill of indictment are
that he “unlawfully and intentionally caused harm to one Tetteh Bedu with an
offensive weapon.” The trial was a jury trial.<o:p></o:p>Three
main grounds were argued in support of the appeal.<o:p></o:p>These
are:<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) the
learned trial judge misdirected the jury by stating ‘If a rod was used,
markings will be on the skin.’ <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">(2) The
learned trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately on the nature of the
defence.<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">(3) The
learned trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately on conflicts and
doubts in the prosecution’s story.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The only
eye witnesses to the incident were the complainant and the appellant. The
complainant, the first prosecution witness, deposed that while sitting in his
house at about 4.30 a.m. to 5 a.m., he saw two persons, the appellant and
another person, going in the direction of a piece of land in respect of which
he was litigating with one Asafoatse Opata. He said he did not recognise the
people and so decided to follow them, and that when he overtook them on the
land, one of them whom he recognised to be the appellant attacked and cut him
several times with a cutlass, and the other person whom he recognised to be one
Amanor Gbordjor, also hit him with the butt of a gun and he fell to the ground
unconscious. He said that he later went to the police station to report the
incident.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
police officer in charge of the case gave evidence that about one hour before
the first prosecution witness arrived at the police station to make the report
the appellant had reported to the police that he had felled some palm trees and
had been tapping the same, but each time he went in the morning to collect the
palm wine, he met his pots broken and the wine destroyed. At about 3 a.m. on
the day in question he went to keep watch, and while doing so, he saw the first
prosecution witness come there and with an iron rod, he broke two of the pots
and spilt the wine therein. He therefore challenged the first prosecution
witness, whereupon the first prosecution witness knocked him down with the
piece of iron rod, and hit him a number of times with the iron rod. When he
managed to get up, the first prosecution witness took to his heels, he the
appellant then chased and caught him; a struggle ensued during which he the
appellant struck the first prosecution witness with a small palm wine tapping
cutlass, and dispossessed him of the iron rod. From the bush he had come
straight to the police to make a report.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
police cautioned the appellant during the course of the investigations and the
appellant thereupon made a statement to the police which was tendered in
evidence as part of the prosecution’s case. The relevant portions of that
statement will be referred to presently.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>