TORTO vs. THE REPUBLIC [1971]DLCA2169

Date	1971-03-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLCA2169

APALOO JA

JIAGGE JA

SOWAH J.A.

HEWARD-MILLS FOR THE APPELLANT.

MRS. JOYCE AMANKWAH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1971]DLCA2169
																																						<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" >TORTO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 1 GLR 342<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:
26 MARCH 1971.<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">

HEWARD-MILLS FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. JOYCE AMANKWAH, 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">

APALOO, JIAGGE AND SOWAH JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. On 11 December 1970, the appellant
was convicted by Koi Larbi J.S.C., sitting with a jury, of the manslaughter of
Joseph Benjamin Ofosu Koranteng and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment
with hard labour. The facts on which the prosecution relied are simple.
Although it is not possible to reconcile completely the testimony of the
various witnesses, the gist of the case which the Republic made against the
appellant was as follows: At some time after 10 p.m. on 28 February 1970 the
deceased and his nephew Asae were having a meal in their room. They then heard
somebody call out to the deceased by name. That person was obviously in a
fighting mood and challenged the deceased to a fight. The deceased came out of
the room and the person uttered threats to him. That person was the appellant
who then held a bottle. He and the deceased apparently exchanged words but not
blows. Shortly after this, the appellant left in the direction of a bar
described as Ayee Moko Sane. At the time the appellant left for the bar, the
deceased sat in a lane through which the appellant passed. The latter threw a
beer bottle at the deceased. He followed this up with stones. This apparently
infuriated the deceased who chased the appellant and eventually caught up with
him. The deceased and the appellant then fought and it seems clear that the
deceased who then had an army belt beat the appellant with it. The evidence
suggests that as the appellant was unarmed and was having the worst of the
fight, he ran into the yard of the bar and emerged shortly afterwards with a
knife. The fight apparently resumed and the evidence shows that when the
deceased again began striking him with the belt, the appellant for his part,
stabbed the left part of the deceased’s chest with the knife. The deceased was
rushed in a taxicab to the Military Hospital but succumbed to his injuries that
very night.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant disputed this version of the facts. His version, put shortly, was
this: On the night in question, he was passing through a lane which had become
slippery and muddy with rain when he tripped and nearly fell. Some by-standers,
about five in number, jeered at him. This resulted in an altercation between
them. This soon developed into a fight in which the five men beat him with army
belts. As he was getting the worst of the fighting he escaped, but the people
chased him and caught up with him at a distance of about 300 yards. They then
resumed the assault on him. This attracted a crowd and some well-meaning
by-standers advised his assailants to desist from beating him. His attackers
took offence at this and began insulting the onlookers. In the course of this,
he made good his escape. He denied that he stabbed any person with a knife that
night.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After all
but one of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence, the court moved to the
scene of the crime and the court and jury were shown various places of
significance to the case. When the prosecution’s case eventually closed, the
learned trial judge was invited to exercise his powers under section 271 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), and withdraw the case from the jury.
The trial judge decided against that and held that “there is some evidence or
material for the consideration of the jury.” The appellant then narrated his
version of the story as above. Thereafter, the learned trial judge gave a
careful direction to the jury on all aspects of the case. Indeed, counsel for the
appellant told us frankly that the summing-up was most favourable to the
appellant. Such indeed was it that the appellant made no complaint before us
against the summing-up. But the jury took only eleven minutes to reach a
unanimous verdict of guilty of manslaughter. The appellant contests that
verdict by this appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The most
serious ground of appeal urged before us was that the learned trial judge was
wrong in not withdrawing the case from the jury. It was submitted that there
was no nexus between the stabbing and the death of the deceased. It was urged
that there was no evidence of the identity of the person allegedly stabbed by
the appellant and that if such person</main>