SEWONOMIM ALIAS ATUAHENE AND OTHERS vs. THE REPUBLIC [1973]DLHC442

Date	1973-06-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC442

OSEI-HWERE J.

S. K. AKOTO FOR THE FIRST APPELLANT.

SECOND AND THIRD APPELLANTS IN PERSON.

OSEI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC442
																																						<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" >SEWONOMIM ALIAS ATUAHENE AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 15<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
25 JUNE 1975.<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">

S. K. AKOTO FOR THE FIRST APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

SECOND AND THIRD APPELLANTS IN PERSON.<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">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellants were jointly charged under sections 47 (1) and 57 of the Pharmacy
and Drugs Act, 1961 (Act 64) (as amended by the Pharmacy and Drugs (Amendment)
Act, 1963 (Act 222)), for possessing 41.00 grammes of Indian hemp. The second
appellant was additionally charged under the same sections for possessing 1.33
grammes of Indian hemp. They were arraigned before the Circuit Court, Sunyani,
and upon their trial, after they had pleaded not guilty, they were found guilty
by the learned circuit judge and convicted on their respective charges. The
first appellant was duly sentenced to a term of five years’ imprisonment with
hard labour, the second appellant was sentenced to a term of seven years’
imprisonment with hard labour on the first count and to five years’
imprisonment with hard labour on the second charge—the sentences to run
concurrently; the third appellant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment
with hard labour. The case against the appellants, which the prosecution sought
to prove and the trial judge accepted as proved, was that on the material date
the second appellant gave a parcel containing wrappers of Indian hemp (which
were found to weigh 41.00 grammes) to the first appellant to deliver to the
third appellant. The first appellant went to find the third appellant at a
cocoa farm breaking cocoa pods with others. He called the third appellant aside
and the first appellant (according to him) handed the parcel to the third
appellant. The third appellant (again as alleged by the first appellant) took
one of the wrappers of Indian hemp and he started to smoke it. It is alleged
that at this stage one Yaw Kyei (who was among the party breaking the cocoa
pods) came upon the first and third appellants. He challenged the first
appellant that he was selling Indian hemp and so he caused his arrest. At the
police station the first appellant informed the police that it was the second
appellant who gave the parcel to him. The second appellant was consequently
arrested. His room was searched and four wrappers of dried leaves similar to
those found on the first appellant were found under a raffia mat on his bed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
appellant, who was represented by counsel in this court, appealed against his
conviction and sentence. The second and third appellants were unrepresented by
counsel and they initially appealed against sentence although in their grounds
of appeal they showed that they were aggrieved by the conviction as well. Upon
reading the record of proceedings the court granted them leave to appeal
against their conviction as well. In his argument before this court counsel for
the first appellant argued that there was no proof before the court that he had
legal knowledge of the contents of the parcel he was possessing. Counsel argued
that in spite of the admissions by the first appellant in his statement that he
was told by the second appellant that the parcel contained Indian hemp, the
prosecution ought to have gone on to prove legal knowledge, especially, as the
first appellant was denying in his evidence in court that he knew the contents
of the parcel he carried. This argument is wholly without merit. The first
appellant’s statement to the police, as noted by the trial judge, was admitted
in evidence without any objection and the contents were in no way challenged.
Where a confession statement of an accused person to the police is retracted by
him on oath in court the court is entitled to convict on the confession
statement if it is satisfied that the confession statement is the truth and his
evidence on oath is false: Porter v. Court [1963] Crim.L.R. 39, D.C. I find,
therefore, that the first appellant’s conviction cannot be impeached and his
appeal against conviction must fail.<o:p></o:p>In regard
to the second appellant the trial judge gave the following reasons for his
conviction:<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">“Concerning
the second accused I find the evidence of the first accused to be evidence
against him. Since the first accused gave evidence for the prosecution, his
evidence must be regarded as carrying weight and not that of an accomplice which
should be treated with caution. The fact that more Indian hemp was found in the
room of the second accused which is the subject-matter of the second charge is
corroborative evidence that it was the second accused who gave the Indian hemp
the subject-matter of the first charge to the first accused to be given to the
third accused. There is no dispute whatsoever about the Indian hemp found in
the room of the second accused.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>