NKYIFIE vs. THE REPUBLIC [1977]DLCA1369

Date	1977-06-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA1369

ANIN JA

ANNAN JA

FRANCOIS J.A.

DR. PREMPEH FOR THE APPELLANT.

D. K. AFREH CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLCA1369
																																						<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" >NKYIFIE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977]2 GLR 429<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 JUNE 1977<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">

DR. PREMPEH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

D. K. AFREH, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<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">

ANIN, ANNAN AND FRANCOIS JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANIN J.A.<o:p></o:p>Anin J.A.
delivered the judgment to the court. The appellant was convicted of the murder
of his wife, one Adjoa Bosuo, at the Sunyani criminal session on 22 June 1972,
after he had been tried and found guilty by a seven-man jury. The facts of the
case were simple and not complicated. The appellant, a farmer, married the
deceased and they cohabited happily together for about seven years at Faomae
Badu prior to the incident. There wore two issues of the marriage. On the day
in question, 2 November 1970, the couple went to farm and returned home in the
evening. After supper they retired to bed. There was no evidence of any rupture
in their cordial relations throughout that fateful day and night. According to
the testimony of the first prosecution witness, Francis Kofi Fofie, (the
appellant’s first cousin) who lived in the same house as the couple, the
appellant knocked at his door at about 1 a.m. that same night and aroused him
from sleep shouting: “Kofi wake up, wake up.” The first prosecution witness
promptly answered the call and came out of his room. His next door neighbour,
Joseph Yaw Badu (the second prosecution witness), the appellant’s nephew,
likewise heard the call and also came out of his room spontaneously. As they
did so, both men saw the appellant standing on the verandah holding a cutlass.
Without any prompting whatsoever, the appellant told both men that he had
killed his wife Adjoa Bosuo and his daughter Yaa Gyamfiwaa; and so they should
accompany him to the police station to lodge a complaint. After an argument
about who should take the lead to the police station and who was to carry the
cutlass, the appellant eventually managed to give both men the slip and he
out-paced them to the police station, where he reported himself to the officer
on duty, the fourth prosecution witness, Constable Sarpong saying that he had
killed his wife and daughter. Shortly afterwards, the first prosecution witness
accompanied by the second prosecution witness also arrived at the police
station; and the former handed over the appellant’s cloth and cutlass which he
had retrieved to the police. After detaining the appellant in the cells, the
fourth prosecution witness, Constable Sarpong next briefed his superior officer
Corporal Safo (the sixth prosecution witness) who was fast asleep in his
quarters adjoining the police station. The sixth prosecution witness quickly
jumped into action, and, after making routine entries in the station diary, he
proceeded to the locus in quo, where he was shown the appellant’s room by the
first two witnesses, and the third prosecution witness Mathew Yaw Donkor, uncle
of Adjoa Bosuo.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
evidence, the sixth prosecution witness described seeing in this room:<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 woman
lying on her back whom I thought was then pregnant dead with two cutlass wounds
on her head. I also saw a girl aged then about two years lying near the dead
woman. I examined the two people and later on found that the girl was not dead.
I therefore removed her to the Wenchi Methodist Hospital where she was admitted
for treatment. I later on caused the scene to be photographed after which the
corpse was removed to Wenchi mortuary.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
post-mortem examination on the appellant’s wife was conducted on 3 November
1970 by the Medical Superintendent of the Wenchi Methodist Hospital Dr. Jan
Beetman (the seventh prosecution witness), after the body had been identified
to him by the third prosecution witness, uncle of the deceased, in the presence
of the sixth prosecution witness. His report was received in evidence without
objection and marked exhibit D. Therein he gave the cause of death as “skull
fracture with severe damage to brain tissue.” The injuries sustained by the
deceased Adjoa Bosuo and her general condition were described by Dr. Beetman in
exhibit D:<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">&nbsp;“Head-Wound of about eight inches on the right
side of the face and head. Skull fracture. Wound of about three inches through
left ear. Brain—Brain tissue severely damaged and haemorrhages. Skull—Fractured
on the right side. Uterus—Pregnancy of about seven months. Lungs, heart, liver
spleen, kidneys, chest, neck: all normal.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A
government pathologist’s report on the appellant’s cutlass previously
surrendered to the police was also put in evidence; the significant entry
therein being that the stain on the cutlass “showed to be human blood.”<o:p></o:p></main>