ABUGIRI FRAFRA ALIAS PINI FRAFRA vs. THE REPUBLIC [1974]DLCA2242

Date	1974-12-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLCA2242

AMISSAH JA

SOWAH JA

ANIN JA.

SAM TAY FOR THE APPELLANT.

ASAMOAH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1974]DLCA2242
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">ABUGIRI FRAFRA ALIAS PINI FRAFRA <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<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;[1974] 2 GLR 447<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:
20 DECEMBER 1974.<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">

SAM TAY
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">

AMISSAH, SOWAH AND ANIN JJA.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>He
delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant, Abugiri Frafra alias Pini
Frafra, was convicted of the murder of one Kwaku Oppong and sentenced to death.
The act had no apparent reason. The appellant had been living at Pokukrom in
the Brong-Ahafo Region where he was the caretaker of a cocoa farm owned by
Kwadwo Nantwiri, an elder brother of the deceased. He attacked the deceased
with a cutlass one afternoon while the deceased sat talking to his wife. There
was one fatal wound on the neck which almost completely severed the head from
the body. Death was instantaneous. That was on 29 June 1971. In a statement
made by the appellant to the police the day after the incident he said he had
killed the deceased because the deceased threatened to kill him for having had
an affair with the deceased’s sister, Yaa Adoma. In evidence at his trial the
appellant told a somewhat different story. That story was of insults heaped on
him by the deceased and of a cigarette and food which he suspected to have been
poisoned offered him by the deceased on another occasion. By some apparent
supernatural intervention he had been saved from smoking the cigarette or
eating the food. On the day in question he had been in peaceful pursuit of his
affairs when the deceased once more started insulting him on account of his
relations with Yaa Adoma. Upon the appellant asking him to desist, the deceased
slapped him twice. The deceased was about to pick up a cutlass which the
appellant had thrown away after being first slapped. Fearing an attack with the
cutlass if the deceased got it, the appellant rushed on him. The deceased first
slashed the back of the appellant’s neck with the cutlass. There was then a
scuffle during which the cutlass first fell down, followed by the deceased who
fell on it. In taking the cutlass from under the head of the deceased the fatal
slash occurred.<o:p></o:p>This
evidence as stated earlier differed from the statement to the police. In that,
for example, the cut on the back of the appellant’s own neck had been explained
by him as the result of his desire and attempt to commit suicide which failed
because he was seized before he had had time to achieve his objective. It will
also be recalled that he said then that he had killed the deceased because he
heard the deceased threaten to kill him. These inconsistencies were left to the
jury.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>So also
were the defences of accident, self-defence and insanity. Surprisingly the
defence of provocation was not referred to by the learned trial judge in his
summing-up. On the strength of the appellant’s evidence as to insults and slaps
one would have thought that that defence was fairly open in case the other
defences mentioned proved unsuccessful. Having regard to the view we have taken
of the case, however, we do not think that the omission is of great
consequence. Indeed the appellant does not complain of it. What he does
complain of in this appeal is the judge’s treatment of the question of
insanity.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
connection with that issue, the prosecution called Dr. W. K. Ahlijah, a
psychiatrist, as a witness. His evidence was that the appellant was admitted
into the mental hospital as a patient on 18 November 1971, that is, some four
to five months after the incident. Dr. Ahlijah found that the appellant was
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. This mental illness took the form of
persecutory delusions. From the account that the doctor gathered, he formed the
opinion that the behaviour of the appellant at the time of the incident was
unpredictable, senseless, repulsive and aggressive; behaviour which underlined
the paranoid schizophrenia. The appellant was a patient at the mental hospital
for nearly a year. On 11 October 1972, Dr. Ahlijah reported to the registrar of
the district court that he was then sufficiently improved to be able to plead
in court and he asked for arrangements to be made for the appellant’s
collection from the hospital.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>No
evidence was called by any one to contradict the psychiatrist’s. In his
summing-up notes on insanity and insane delusions which we</main>