REPUBLIC vs. DARKO [1971]DLHC2155

Date	1971-06-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2155

EDWARD WIREDU J.

A. A. FORSTER SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

THE ACCUSED IN PERSON.

[1971]DLHC2155
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DARKO <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE
COAST]<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] 2 GLR 227<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:
4 JUNE 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">

A. A. FORSTER, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
REPUBLIC.<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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>The
indictment preferred against the accused person accuses him of the offence of
attempting to cause harm by the use of an offensive weapon, contrary to
sections 18 (1) and 70 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
prosecution’s case in support of the offence as presented by the first
prosecution witness and the second prosecution witness, the material
prosecution witnesses, reveals that on the night of 27 March 1970, the accused
with a loaded double-barrel gun, exhibit A, went to the house of the first
prosecution witness who was conversing with the second prosecution witness in a
room and shot at the first prosecution witness, but the gun did not fire. As a
result of a struggle which later followed the unsuccessful attempt, both the
first and second prosecution witnesses over powered the accused and seized
exhibit A from him. Both the first and second prosecution witnesses testified
further that:<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">(a) when
the accused pointed exhibit A at the first prosecution witness, he asked the
second<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">prosecution
witness to clear the way to enable him kill the first prosecution witness;<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">(b) the
accused actually pulled the trigger and they both heard the noise made by the
trigger when it was pulled;<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">(c)
exhibits B and B2 were the cartridges they found in the chambers of exhibit A;<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">(d)
exhibit B showed a dent at one end indicating the impact made by the trigger on
it when it was pulled.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
close of the prosecution case, I felt that this was a clear case of attempted
murder. I therefore invited learned state attorney to address me on whether it
was open to me to call on the accused to open his defence in view of the
variation between the evidence and the offence charged. I explained that in
view of the expressed intention of the accused to kill the first prosecution
witness as testified by the prosecution witnesses, I was of the view that it
was a proper case of attempted murder, but that as the accused stood charged
with another offence I was entertaining some doubt on what offence to call on
the accused to answer. I further invited learned state attorney to satisfy me
whether I could call on the accused to answer for a higher offence where he had
been charged with a lesser offence. When inviting learned state attorney on the
second issue I had in mind the fact that both attempted murder and causing harm
by the use of offensive weapon are first degree felonies. In other words, the
degree of seriousness of the two offences are in the eyes of the law the same.
An attempt to cause harm under section 70 of Act 29 even though it may carry
the same punishment as the substantive offence under that section is obviously
a lesser offence than the substantive one and if that is so then an attempt to
cause harm under section 70 will obviously be a lesser offence than attempted
murder.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>