NIMOLGU AND OTHERS vs. THE REPUBLIC [1979]DLHC1088

Date	1979-10-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1088

TAYLOR J.

W. A. ATUGUBA FOR THE APPELLANTS.

MRS. SOPHIA ADENYIRA STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1979]DLHC1088
																																						<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" >NIMOLGU AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, BOLGATANGA] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 714<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:
19 OCTOBER 1979<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">

W. A. ATUGUBA FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. SOPHIA ADENYIRA, 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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>The three
appellants in this case were jointly charged with the offence of causing harm
contrary to section 69 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). They were all
convicted by the Circuit Court, Bolgatanga, and were each sentenced to a term
of nine months’ imprisonment with hard labour. They have appealed against their
convictions and sentences and in view of the grounds of appeal filed on their
behalf it is necessary to set down the statement of offence and the particulars
of offence as they were contained in the charge sheet upon which they were
arraigned. They are:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Causing harm: (2 Counts)
section 69 of Act 29/60 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE 1. Aburo Nimolgu—Farmer, 2.
Atibire Nimolgu —Farmer and 3. Abugbire Akologo — Farmer: For that you on 14
February 1978 at about 7.30 p.m. at Zuarungu in the Upper Circuit and within
the jurisdiction of this court did unlawfully cause harm to one Henry Azugre.
2. Aburo Nimolgu — Farmer, 2. Atibire Nimolgu — Farmer and 3. Abugbire Akologo
— Farmer: For that you at the same place, time and place aforesaid in the Upper
Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did unlawfully cause harm to
one Anaafo Azugre.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
complainants who were the victims of the appellants’ offence, namely, Henry
Azugre and Anaafo Azugre, were the only witnesses for the prosecution as to the
events leading to the harm which they suffered at the hands of the appellants.
The said complainants and the appellants are all farmers living in Zuarungu. On
14 February 1978 at about 7.30 p.m. while the two complainants were proceeding
home, the appellants who had hidden behind some shrubs suddenly emerged from
their hiding place; they were armed with sticks and the first appellant also
held a cutlass in addition to his stick. They set upon the complainants and
beat them up. The beating was so severe that the complainants sustained very
serious injuries and they became unconscious. They were unable to move and they
lay on the ground the whole night until the following morning when, upon
information received, the police went to the scene and saw the complainants
severely injured and apparently helpless, lying in a lane. They were taken to
hospital. Lying by the complainants were the sticks used as well as a cap which
was claimed by the third appellant as his own. The appellants were at first
arraigned before the district court by the police. Subsequently, acting under
the provision of section 59 of Act 30, the charges were withdrawn and later
fresh charges as I have already indicated, were put before the circuit court
and it is upon the fresh charges that the appellants were tried.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As I have
already indicated the injuries which the complainants suffered were serious
indeed. They gave evidence as to the injuries they suffered and the said
evidence was corroborated by medical reports which the police tendered in
evidence which showed that the complainant, Henry Azugre, had (1) a fracture of
the left tibia, (2) a fracture of the second metacarpal of the left hand, and
(3) multiple abrasions over the right cheek and a six cm. long laceration over
the right temporal region. The other complainant, Anaafo Azugre, had (1) a
fracture of the upper one-third of the right femur, (2) a fracture of the lower
end of the left ulna, and (3) a fracture of the head of the fifth metacarpal
bone of right hand. These injuries were apparently confirmed by x-ray. The
complainant, Henry Azugre, was admitted as an in-patient in hospital from 15
February 1978 until his discharge on 6 June 1978. The complainant, Anaafo
Azugre, was also admitted as an in-patient from 15 February to 24 May 1978.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
upon these facts which were established by the evidence of the complainants and
corroborated by the medical evidence that the circuit judge convicted the
appellants and sentenced each of them to nine months’ imprisonment with hard
labour. Although the appellants denied their involvement and two of them
purported to give evidence that the complainants were chased by dogs and fell
down, their version of the facts is not supported by the nature of the
injuries. Counsel who appeared for them at the trial and in this appeal filed
on behalf of each of them appeals on these two grounds:<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"><sp</main>