KOBINA vs. THE REPUBLIC [1985]DLCA930

Date	1985-05-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA930

APALOO C.J

EDWARD WIREDU JA

AND OSEI-HWERE J.A.

AMUI FOR THE APPELLANT.

SAM BADDOO CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC

[1985]DLCA930
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KOBINA <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 337<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
28 MAY 1985<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

AMUI
FOR THE APPELLANT. <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">

APALOO C.J., EDWARD WIREDU AND OSEI-HWERE JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
C.J. delivered the judgment of the court. On 12 March 1985 the appellant was
convicted by the High Court, Tamale of the offence of rape and was sentenced to
eighteen months’ imprisonment with hard labour.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The main
facts of the case were narrated by the victim, a ten-year old girl called
Cecilia Akude. This little school girl lived with her mother in a village
called Limpusi near Yendi. The appellant who is a blacksmith, also lives there
and the evidence shows that he was well known to the complainant and her
mother.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Sometime
in July 1982, when the complainant was returning home after attending nature’s
call, the appellant called her. He said he was going to send her to buy him
drink from her mother. The latter sells a potent local gin called “akpeteshie.”
According to the complainant, when she went to the appellant, he asked her to
enter his room and fetch a bottle. The unsuspecting girl went there. The
appellant followed, put her in his bed and had sexual intercourse with her, To
prevent her attracting the attention of neighbours, he covered her mouth with a
piece of cloth. When he finished the act, he then gave her a bottle to buy the
drink. According to the evidence, the girl threatened to report the affair to
her mother but the appellant in turn threatened to shoot her if she did. For
that reason, the victim kept quiet until her mother discovered that her private
part was interfered with. When she inquired who was responsible for this, she
said it was the appellant.<o:p></o:p>The
evidence is unclear when exactly the complainant’s mother discovered her
daughter’s condition. It seems this was a week or so after the event. The
complainant was taken to the hospital. This was on 26 July 1982. Dr Tapang
discovered a tear in the posterior part of the orifice. He found that her hymen
was not intact. When questioned in court, the complainant said she had never
been carnally known before this incident.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A report
was thereafter made to the police. Deputy Superintendent Amarteifio gave
instructions for the appellant to be sent for. He knew him as well as he knew
the complainant and her mother. According to Superintendent Amarteifio, when he
inquired from the appellant why he did such a thing, his reply was that it was
the work of the devil.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In due
course, the appellant was charged with rape. He made a statement to the police
in which he denied that he had had any sexual relations with the complainant.
Indeed, he said he was away from the village at the time, and stayed away a
fortnight. He implied that as he was not in the village, he could not have been
responsible for the offence alleged. At his trial, he gave evidence and
reiterated this position.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
conclusion of evidence, the judge summed up the case for the prosecution and
the appellant. The case did not appear to have presented any problem to the
jury. They took only five minutes to return a verdict of guilty. The judge
proceeded to convict the appellant and, as we said, sent him to prison for the
comparatively short period of eighteen months. It is this conviction that the
appellant contests by this appeal.<o:p></o:p>