OTSIBAH vs. THE REPUBLIC [1986]DLCA957

Date	1986-02-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLCA957

FRANCOIS J.S.

EDWARD WIREDU J.A.

AMUA-SEKYI J.

[1986]DLCA957
																																						<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">

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; OTSIBAH <o:p></o:p>

vs. <o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 2 GLR 394<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
26 FEBRUARY 1986<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">

KWAME
TETTEH (WITH HIM N. KUENYEHIA) FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

OSAFO
SAMPONG, PRINCIPAL 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">

FRANCOIS J.S.C, EDWARD WIREDU J.A. AND AMUA-SEKYI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.SC.<o:p></o:p>Francois
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant appeals against his
conviction for manslaughter and the sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with
hard labour passed thereon by the High Court, Accra on 30 July 1985. Two
grounds of appeal were filed in respect of his conviction:<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">(1) That the conviction cannot be
supported having regard to the weight of evidence adduced before the court; and<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">(2) That the learned trial judge
erred in law in not directing the jury to acquit and discharge the appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is a
matter of regret that counsel’s able arguments were not matched by similar
industry to set out the actual areas of criticism of the verdict. However,
having allowed counsel to argue on unrestricted terrain, we must set out what
we gather were the areas of controversy upon which his attacks were launched.
They may be summed up as follows:<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) That the learned judge
misdirected the jury by failing to direct them on the offence of manslaughter;<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">(b) That the prosecution failed
to connect the appellant with the deceased’s death in that the evidence did not
sufficiently link the appellant with the harm the deceased sustained;<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">(c) That there was doubt whether
there was a dead body, to warrant the appellant standing trial for murder, and<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">(d) That the medical evidence was
at variance with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As the
last three grounds can be dealt with shortly, they will be taken in inverse
order, but before doing so, a brief recapitulation of the facts is necessary.<o:p></o:p>It was 19
June 1983. The time was about 2.30 pm. Around Darkuman the air reverberated
with shots fired by jubilating men in celebration of victory over a foiled
coup. The appellant and his party had just arrived at the Darkuman Police
Station and were active participants in this revelry; shooting in the air and
even into the ceiling of the police charge office. A remand prisoner, naturally
curious at the commotion, peeped through the window of the cell opening into
the charge office. His curiousity quickly evanesced when he received the gruff
warning that if he failed to remove his visage out of sight he would be shot.
He had scarcely done so when a bullet raced through the cell window fatally
wounding one of the remand prisoners there.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>