BROBBEY AND OTHERS vs. THE REPUBLIC [1981]DLHC2108

Date	1981-03-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1981]DLHC2108

TWUMASI J.

J.A. DAWSON FOR THE APPELLANTS.

ASAFO-ADJEI SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1981]DLHC2108
																																						<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" >BROBBEY AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 608<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:
4 MARCH 1981<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">

J.A. DAWSON FOR THE APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

ASAFO-ADJEI SENIOR 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>Twumasi
J. On 28 March 1980, four policemen were arraigned before the District Court
Grade 1, Bibiani, on two counts of causing harm, contrary to section 69; one
count of causing damage, contrary to section 172; and one count of stealing,
contrary to section 124 respectively, of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The
trial commenced instantaneously but did not end that day wherefore the accused
were remanded on bail. The prosecution closed their case on 11 April 1980 when
the trial resumed. The accused suffered convictions on all the four counts
according as they were charged. The punishment meted out to each accused was
one month’s prison term with hard labour and an order to refund the money
alleged to have been stolen. The first and fourth accused petitioned the High
Court for redress of their grievances, contending that true justice was not
meted out to them by the learned trial magistrate.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
circumstances that culminated in the criminal proceedings were related by seven
witnesses called by the prosecution. The first prosecution witness said he was
at his store when four policemen came there. One of them, being the first
accused, accused him of having sold one packet of Pall Mall cigarettes to one
Ofori at sixteen cedis instead of two cedis. He said he denied the alleged
offence but the first accused held him and told him to accompany him to the
charge office.<o:p></o:p>He, the
first prosecution witness, said he resisted the arrest and struggled with the
first accused. While this was going on, he said the other three policemen joined
him and they all beat him up and tore his pair of knickers and pants. He said
an amount of ¢1,325 was in his pocket during the incident and that this money
had been stolen and he could not see the pair of knickers. He said his wife who
rushed to his rescue was bitten by the first accused.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second prosecution witness, a farmer, said he was passing by the first
prosecution witness store when he saw four policemen heckling the first
prosecution witness’ but he left the scene instantly. The first prosecution
witness’ wife gave evidence which was substantially the same as that given by
her husband. The fifth prosecution witness also a farmer, followed the line of
evidence given by the first prosecution witness and the fourth prosecution
witness that the policemen beat the first prosecution witness and bit his wife,
but unlike the first prosecution witness and his wife, he did not tell the
court whether any of the accused removed the first prosecution witness pair of
knickers or any money. The sixth prosecution witness said he was sitting
together with the first prosecution witness and his wife when the first accused
and the other accused came there. He said the first accused produced one packet
of Pall Mall cigarettes and told the first prosecution witness that he had sold
it to a customer above the controlled price and so he should accompany him to
the police station but the first prosecution witness refused the request and
resisted arrest. He said, however, that the first prosecution witness admitted
selling the cigarette to the customer but explained that that customer had
failed to collect his balance. He also said the first prosecution witness tried
forcibly to retrieve the packet of cigarettes from the pocket of the first
accused’s shirt where he had his police identification card. He of said he saw
the first prosecution witness’ knickers torn, but he did not see its
whereabouts after a large crowd had gathered at the scene. He said neither of
the policemen beat the first prosecution witness nor did any of them remove the
first prosecution witness’ knickers. He also testified that before the
policemen came to the store a certain boy had gone there to buy a packet of
Pall Mall cigarettes.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The last,
but not the least important testimony was given by Charles Kwabena Num, the
third prosecution witness, a police sergeant, who was on duty at the Bibiani
police charge office. He said the second accused came to the charge office with
the first accused’s police identification card torn in part and complained that
the identification card had been torn by the first prosecution witness while
resisting arrest by the police for selling one packet of Pall Mall cigarettes
above the controlled price. He said at that juncture, the first, third and
fourth accused persons brought in the first prosecution witness and made the
same complaint as had been made by the second accused person. He rejected the
allegation that the first accused hit the first prosecution witness’ forehead
with a ruler at the charge office. He also said that he issued police medical
report forms to the first prosecution witness and his wife.<o:p></o:p>