TANOH ALIAS OBENG vs. THE REPUBLIC [1971]DLHC2168

Date	1971-08-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2168

TAYLOR J.

OWUSU EDUSEI FOR MMIEH FOR ADUSEI FOR THE APPELLANT.

SAMPONG FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1971]DLHC2168
																																						<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" >TANOH ALIAS OBENG<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<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 482<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:
30 AUGUST 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">

OWUSU EDUSEI FOR MMIEH FOR ADUSEI FOR THE
APPELLANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant herein was convicted by the Circuit Court, Kumasi, on two counts of
stealing N¢800.00 contrary to section 124 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29),
and causing unlawful damage to a police docket contrary to section 172 (1) (a)
of Act 29. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour on
the stealing count and two years’ imprisonment with hard labour on the unlawful
damage count. The sentences were to run concurrently but to commence at the
expiration of a term of ten years’ imprisonment with hard labour which the
appellant was serving in respect of another offence. It is against these
convictions and sentences that the appellant has lodged his appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
of the case founding the stealing charge are that the appellant is said to be
in the habit of assisting the complainant who though an illiterate is said to
be able to sign his name. The appellant it is alleged normally fills in the
complainant’s cheques for him before he signs them for presentation to his
bankers, the Ghana Commercial Bank at Kejetia, Kumasi. On a Saturday in August
1965 the complainant went to his bankers with a cheque duly filled in by the
appellant and signed by the complainant and at the bank the complainant learnt
that on the previous Monday someone had cashed N¢800.00 on his account. He
denied having signed any cheque for any such sum. The matter was referred to
the police after the complainant with the appellant and others had seen a
Mallam before whom it was said that the appellant confessed that he stole the
money when the Mallam, by a so-called supernatural power exercised through his
fetish, pointed out the appellant as the thief.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant, according to the evidence, absconded and went and hid in a friend’s
house and to a friend of this friend he confessed the crime. The friend to whom
he confessed reported to the police and the appellant was arrested. It was also
given in evidence that the appellant made a statement to the police admitting
the offence and the mother and sister of the appellant refunded to the police
N¢600.00 and promised to pay the remaining N¢200.00 but this promise was not
kept.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>With
regard to the count of causing damage to the police docket, the evidence led by
the prosecution supporting this charge is that the appellant became friendly
with a police officer who gave evidence as the third prosecution witness. This
officer conspired with the appellant to steal the police docket in the case and
the said docket containing inter alia the confession statement of the
appellant, the forged cheque and a report of a hand writing expert was
purloined by the said third prosecution witness and it was destroyed. The
relevant portion of the third prosecution witness’s evidence on this matter is
inter alia 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">“We
decided to steal the docket so that there would be no evidence available to
prosecute the accused and an order for restitution of the money would be made
in favour of the accused and we could trade with the money ... Constable
Ahiakpo had the key to the office where the docket was being kept and brought
the docket and called us to the R.C.I.D. office where he gave the docket to us
in the presence of the accused ... Myself and the accused burnt the docket. It
was the accused who lighted a match on the docket and it was burnt to ashes . .
.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The third
prosecution witness was convicted of causing damage to the docket and sentenced
to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour.<o:p></o:p>