DONKOR vs. THE REPUBLIC [1976]DLCA381

Date	1976-06-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA381

ARCHER J.A

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.A.

AGYEMAN-BEMPAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

MRS. JOYCE BAMFORD-ADDO PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1976]DLCA381
																																						<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" >DONKOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 481<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:
12 MARCH 1976.<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">

AGYEMAN-BEMPAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. JOYCE BAMFORD-ADDO, PRINCIPAL 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">

ARCHER, KINGSLEY-NYINAH AND HAYFRON-BENJAMIN
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>Kingsley-Nyinah
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. In the expert opinion of Dr. Emmanuel
Doe-Doosey, the pathologist who carried out a post-mortem examination of the
mortal remains of Akua Nsiah (herein after referred to as the deceased), her
death was “due to haemorrhagic shock, massive bleeding which was due to
multiple incised lacerated wounds . . . caused by a sharp instrument. It could
be a cutlass, or sword.” Of the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by
the deceased the medical officer, testifying as the sixth prosecution witness,
said:<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">“. . .
there were multiple incised lacerated wounds over the back of the left side of
the neck; each measuring about six inches long by three inches wide by four and
a half inches deep severing the neck muscles and the blood vessels of the neck.
The wounds were about five. There were also about eight multiple incised wounds
over the back of the left shoulder, the left upper arm and the left forearm . .
. There were also about four multiple incised lacerated wounds of various sizes
over the back of the head. Other multiple incised lacerated wounds were over
the right side of the head. The right hand, the forearm and upper arm of the
right arm also showed multiple incised lacerated wounds. The fingers of the
right hand were all severed. The face showed a lacerated wound running through
the nose and the lips.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>While the
prosecution took the stand that these brutal injuries had been intentionally
and unlawfully inflicted, the appellant’s answer was that his action was
justified because he had been gravely provoked, by the deceased, into
inflicting the injuries which had caused her death.<o:p></o:p>The
deceased woman, Akua Nsiah, was tending and nursing her sick husband when she
left him for a quick visit to her farm to collect food and other items for
their domestic consumption. She never returned home to her family alive. When
she got there she found the appellant, right inside her farm, and in such
circumstances as made her believe that he was stealing her foodstuffs and
crops. Not unnaturally, therefore, she accosted the appellant to know by whose
authority, or permission, if any, he was harvesting her palm-nuts. She must,
quite naturally, also have been greatly incensed for she went on to call the
appellant a thief. Whereupon the appellant, losing his temper, attacked and
slashed away at her with his cutlass, inflicting the mortal injuries
above-described. In court the appellant asserted that he had been provoked into
that fatal violence against the deceased who had not only abused and insulted
him as “a foolish man, an ugly man” and a thief; but who had also and,
furthermore, hit him “several blows” with a palm branch about the size of his
wrist. He further admitted striking the deceased with his cutlass because she
had accompanied her inquiry as to what right he had to harvest her palm-fruits
with the outrageous accusation that he was a murderer. It was an important part
of his defence, therefore, that he “did not intend, originally, to cut her”; he
had merely tried to parry off the deceased’s palm-branch battery with his
cutlass. One of the vital questions we have to resolve, on the peculiar facts
of this matter, then, is whether a person who inflicts such frightful injuries
on another can be heard to plead justification under the law for his savage
killing on the ground that he had no intention to cause the victim’s decease
unlawfully?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
course of the trial exhibit A was properly admitted in evidence as a voluntary
statement the appellant had made to the police, some four months after that
fatal event which resulted in his prosecution for murder. In that statement
which contrasts most significantly and interestingly with his oath-evidence,
the appellant described the incident on the farm of the deceased in the
following very graphic terms:<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">“During
the course of the plucking of the palm-fruits a certain woman came there. She
was carrying a basketful of pepper . . . I was then alone. Immediately she
arrived there she started insulting me for having stolen her palm fruit. I told
her that I did not know who owned the palm-nut . . . and so I entreated her to
stop abusing me. Without paying heed to what I was telling her, she rather
became annoyed and as such took a branch of the palm tree I had cut and struck
me twice at the back. I therefore, hit h</main>