DABALGA MAMPRUSI vs. THE STATE [1966]DLSC1672

Date	1966-04-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1672

CRABBE JSC

APALOO JSC

AKAINYAH J.S.C.

ACHEAMPONG FOR THE APPELLANT.

GYEKE-DAKO SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1672
																																						<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" >DABALGA MAMPRUSI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 291<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:
18 APRIL 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">

ACHEAMPONG FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

GYEKE-DAKO, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<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">

CRABBE, APALOO AND AKAINYAH JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was, on 10 March
1965, convicted of the murder of his wife Nyeboah Mamprusi by the High Court of
Tamale and was sentenced to death. The facts on which the prosecution relied
are extremely simple. In the evening of 25 December 1964, the appellant visited
the house of his father-in-law one Sumi Mamprusi where his wife, the deceased,
was also living. He was carrying a loaded gun. The appellant called the
deceased and while the latter stepped in his direction, the former without any
apparent reason, aimed the gun and fired it at her. She sustained injuries to
her chest and died moments afterwards. The appellant then showed a clean pair
of heels. Shortly afterwards, the appellant turned up at the police station at
Walewale with a gun and reported that he had killed his wife and had wanted to
kill one Fulani man also but had not succeeded in locating him. He accordingly
surrendered himself to the police and was taken into custody. Two days later,
that is 27 December, the appellant gave a full statement to the police. In his
statement, the appellant gave the reason for his hitherto inexplicable conduct.
He said he suspected his wife of carrying on an amorous association with one
Kugurna Tia who was said to be a rich man and that his go-between for this
purpose was the Fulani man Sambo whom he had also wanted to kill.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When put
upon his trial, the appellant introduced some significant variations into his
original story. After recounting his matrimonial differences with the deceased,
he said on the day of the incident, while on a routine visit to his wife, he
saw one Sambo hand her meat in suspicious circumstances. While admonishing her
about her conduct, he said the deceased abused him and he abused the deceased
in return. At that stage, according to the appellant, the deceased’s sister
Nabilla Mamprusi arrived and held him and invited the deceased to slap him. He
did not say the deceased in fact did so, but he said both the deceased and her
sister Nabilla held him and while they were struggling, the gun which was
already loaded, went off.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
put up by the appellant raised the legal defences of accident and provocation,
and in a very slight degree, self-defence. All these alternative defences were
put to the jury in a fairly comprehensive summing-up by the learned trial
judge, Bannerman J. The jury must have taken a particularly poor view of the
appellant’s case, because they took only seven minutes to arrive at a unanimous
verdict of guilty of murder. It is against this that the appellant appeals to
this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Three
grounds of appeal were argued, none of which, in our opinion, contains any real
merit. First, it was contended for the appellant, that the verdict was
unreasonable having regard to the evidence. It was said the evidence of the
first witness for the prosecution was unreasonable and she being the only
eyewitness, the other evidence was inadmissible. We see nothing in this
submission. Whether the witness Nabilla was a truthful witness or not was a
matter for the jury and we can find nothing improbable about her evidence which
was in fact not only supported by a host of other witnesses but by admissions
made by the appellant himself.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
next argued that the learned trial judge did not sufficiently emphasize the
case of the defence. Whatever that means, we are satisfied that the learned
trial judge put the case of the defence fairly and adequately to the jury and
directed them on all the alternative verdicts open to them. The jury rejected the
defence and on the facts, we are not prepared to say that they were wrong in so
doing.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
finally submitted for the appellant that the learned judge misdirected the jury
on the law of provocation as he adopted an objective rather than a subjective
test. It seems in directing the jury on pr</main>