DANSO vs. THE REPUBLI [1985]DLCA569

Date	1985-03-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA569

OSEI-HWERE J.A

AMPIAH J.A

ESSIEM J.A.

YAW BARIMAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

MRS. ANSON CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1985]DLCA569
																																						<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" >DANSO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLI <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 1 GLR 374<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 MARCH 1989<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">

YAW BARIMAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. ANSON, CHIEF 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">

OSEI-HWERE, AMPIAH AND ESSIEM JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ESSIEM J.A.<o:p></o:p>On 31
January 1981, it is alleged, the appellant went to a palm wine bar at Sefwi
Domi to drink palm wine. He met some others at the bar. Later, one Kweku Danso,
now deceased, also went to the same bar to have a drink. What is relevant to
this case is what he happened after the drink. It is the case of the
prosecution that the appellant and the late Kweku Danso left the bar together
and took the same path home. This was on 31 January 1981, a Saturday. The
uncontroverted evidence is that on Monday, 2 February 1981 Kweku Danso was
found dead. His dead body was found in a shallow stream which runs through the
farm of the third prosecution witness. The first person who saw the dead body
was the appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
discovery of the body those who were with the deceased at the bar on Saturday,
31 January 1981 were arrested and subsequently the appellant was charged with
the offence of murder contrary to section 46 of the Criminal code, 1960 (Act
29).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
particulars of the offence were as follows: “Kwadwo Danso, on or about 31
January 1981 at Domi, intentionally and unlawfully caused the death of Kweku
Danso.” I need hardly say that the prosecution’s case is based on
circumstantial evidence. Their case is that the facts I have narrated earlier
in this judgment point to the fact that it was the accused who caused the death
of the late Kweku Danso. However, the accused, both in his statement to the
police and in his evidence before the court, denied any knowledge of the
murder.<o:p></o:p>At the
close of the case for the prosecution, counsel for the appellant made a
submission of no case but this was overruled and the appellant was called upon
to open his defence. At the end of the case for the defence and addresses of
counsel, the trial judge summed up the evidence to the jury. Eventually the
jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder against the appellant and he was
sentenced accordingly as provided for by law.<o:p></o:p>He now
appeals to this court. The grounds of appeal were:<o:p></o:p>“(a) The
verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence
adduced. (b) The learned trial judge erred in not withdrawing the case from the
jury when at the end of the prosecution’s case the prosecution had failed to
prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged. (c) The learned trial
judge intimidated the jury during the cause of the trial by threatening them
thus:<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">‘Listen
carefully so that you do not bring back any hopeless verdict. If you bring back
a hopeless verdict I know what I will do to you. I am not threatening you, I am
only warning you.’ “<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
no dearth of authority for the proposition that to secure a conviction on
circumstantial evidence, the evidence adduced must lead to one and only one
irresistible conclusion, namely the guilt of the accused. In Duah v. The Republic
[1987-88] 1 G.L.R. 343, C.A., the court dealt exhaustively with the relevant
law applicable where the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Among
other things, the Court of Appeal observed at 353.<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">“. . .
before drawing the inference of the guilt of an accused from circumstantial
evidence, it is very important to make ‘sure that there are no other
co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference’... Thus
circumstantial evidence ought to be closely examined and should be acted upon
only when the circumstances are such that the guilt of the accused must of
necessity be inferred and that the facts lead to no other conclusion... In the
present case, the real question is, did the prosecution prove facts which
satis</main>