SAM vs. THE STATE [1967]DLHC1541

Date	1967-04-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1541

ARCHER J.

J. O. AMUI ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE.

[1967]DLHC1541
																																						<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" >SAM<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 283<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:
28 APRIL 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">

J. O. AMUI, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
STATE.<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">

ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant together with two others was charged with two counts, (1) conspiracy
to commit a crime to wit: stealing and (2) stealing a skull of a human being
from a grave of one deceased Ama Akowa. The three persons were charged jointly
and appeared before the district magistrate grade I, sitting at Cape Coast on
23 January 1967. When the charges were read, the appellant pleaded guilty to
the count of conspiracy. The two others pleaded not guilty to both counts.
After the facts of the case had been narrated by the prosecuting officer, the
trial magistrate wrote 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">“By
court: I am satisfied that the removal of a dead body or part of it which has
been interred is a thing which has ownership vested in it, bearing in mind the
set-up of our African society. Sentence: One day’s imprisonment and a fine of
¢120.00 or six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As the
appellant pleaded guilty, the trial magistrate, after hearing the facts passed sentence.,
The appellant was not represented by counsel at the trial in the court below
although the two other persons charged jointly with him were represented by
counsel.<o:p></o:p>Section
324 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), provides: “No appeal
shall be entertained against conviction by an accused person who has pleaded
guilty and has been convicted on his plea.” It would therefore follow that the
appeal could not be entertained by the court. Nevertheless the grounds of
appeal as filed made it necessary for this court to entertain the appeal. The
grounds filed were:<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
conviction cannot be supported having regard to the facts adduced before the
court. (2) Although the accused pleaded guilty to the charge, there was no
criminal offence before the court to which the accused could have been called
upon to plead. (3) The sentence is harsh and excessive.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The real
interesting legal point in the appeal was whether a human skull was capable of
being stolen from a grave in which the corpse was buried. Learned counsel for
the appellant referred to Archbold’s Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and Practice
(35th ed.), para. 1529 at p. 626 and argued that at common law, the dead body
of a human being was not capable of being stolen. He argued further that once a
dead body had been buried then it must be deemed to have been abandoned and it
was therefore difficult to understand why the learned magistrate said that
ownership was vested in the dead body in view of the set-up of our African
society.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned assistant state attorney in answer, submitted that according to our
Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), a human skull was a thing capable of being stolen
and he referred to section 123 of the Criminal Code which reads:<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">“123. (1)
Any of the crimes of stealing, fraudulent breach of trust, robbery, extortion,
or defrauding by false pretences can be committed in respect of anything,
whether living or dead, and whether fixed to the soil or to any building or
fixture, or not so fixed, and whether the thing be a mineral or water, or gas,
or electricity, or of any other nature, and whether the value thereof be
intrinsic or for purpose of evidence, or be of value only for a particular
purpose or to a particular person, and whether the value thereof do or do not
amount to the value of the lowest denomination of coin; and any document shall
be deemed to be of some value, whether it be complete or incomplete, and
whether or not it be satisfied, exhausted, or cancelled. (2) In any proceedings
in respect of any of the crimes mentioned in subsection (1) it shall not be necessary
to prove ownership or value.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
l</main>