ODURO vs. THE STATE [1967]DLCA1524

Date	1967-02-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLCA1524

OLLENNU JA

AZU CRABBE JA

LASSEY J.A.

T. K. AGBESI (WITH HIM AKIWUMI) FOR THE APPELLANT.

K. A. SEKYI SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1967]DLCA1524
																																						<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" >ODURO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 36<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 FEBRUARY
1967.<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">

T. K. AGBESI (WITH HIM AKIWUMI) FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

K. A. SEKYI, 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">

OLLENNU, AZU CRABBE AND LASSEY JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LASSEY J.A.<o:p></o:p>Lassey
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was on 12 November 1965
convicted at the Kumasi Criminal Session of the murder of Akosua Kraa, his
wife. He has appealed to this court on the substantial ground of misdirection
by non-direction, contending that the learned trial judge had wrongly directed
the jury upon the law of provocation by failing to tell them the effect which
the insulting words of abuse alleged to have been uttered by the deceased and
accompanying the slap which she gave the appellant was likely to have had on
the appellant, and that had they been rightly directed, they might have found
him guilty, not of murder, but of manslaughter only.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
itself concerns one of the near-domestic disputes which often happen between
husband and wife’ who live in the rural or farming areas in this country; the
relevant facts so far as they bear on the question of provocation may be
briefly stated. On or about 18 July 1965 the appellant, who was the deceased’s
husband and residing at another village, proceeded to see the deceased at
Jachic village where she also lived. There the appellant demanded from her
payment of a sum of money which he said he had saved with the deceased. The
deceased did not dispute liability for the debt but pleaded for time to find
the amount to give to the appellant, as she was not in funds at that time. The
appellant appeared not to have been favourably disposed to granting the
deceased’s request for extension of time within which to find the money which
the appellant demanded. The deceased further appealed to the appellant to
exercise more patience as she had planned to go and raiser a loan with which to
pay the debt. It was said the appellant became annoyed at this, and while the
deceased was about to leave the house, apparently to go and find the money
which the appellant wanted, she was suddenly set upon by the appellant who
stabbed her to death with a knife which he had with him and which was hidden in
a sheath. According to eyewitnesses’ account, the appellant unsheathed the
knife from its cover and struck the deceased with it three times. The deceased
died at the hospital shortly afterwards.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant did not deny killing the deceased, but said he did so because he was
provoked as a result of abuse and a slap which she gave him on the face. He
explained that on account of some misunderstanding which arose between him and
the deceased previously, the deceased had intimated that she would no longer
wish to be married to him. Consequently, the appellant said he went to the
house of the deceased in Jachie village on the day of the incident in order to
demand from her a refund of a total sum of about £G59 10s. and in the ensuing
altercation between them over payment of the debt the deceased slapped him on
the face after abusing him. It was in those circumstances that the appellant
pleaded that he had been provoked to such an extent by the deceased that his
crime should be reduced from murder to manslaughter, and the question is
whether the learned trial judge sufficiently directed the jury upon this issue
as the law demanded.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
issue of provocation raised on the evidence by the appellant, the learned trial
judge after reading and explaining to the jury the provisions of section 53 of
the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), which deals with matters relating to
provocation in our law, told the jury:<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">“You have
to consider also whether there was extreme provocation, and here you will be
guided by section 53. When the accused was slapped was it with such violence
that he was deprived of his self-control? This means that did the slap, annoy
him to lose his senses or so infuriates him that he took the knife and stabbed
the deceased? If you believe his story that he was deprived of his self-control
and he, inflicted harm on the deceased, then reduce the crime from murder to
manslaughter. Extreme provocation: it must have gone beyond the limits of human
endurance. You have seen the demonstrations of the accused. You have to
consider the accused’s story. You have to consider all the demonstrations he
made to you in court. That is if you believe the accused’s story taking into
account his evidence and demonstrations then you can reduce the murder to
manslaughter.”<o:p></o:p>After
dealing with some other aspects of the evidence relating to the essential
ingredients which constitute the offence of murder,, the trial judge concluded
his summing-up to the jur</main>