SINGIN vs. REPUBLIC [1992]DLCA4898

Date	1992-07-30
Suit No.	[1992-93] 2 G B R 824 – 830
Citation No.	[1992]DLCA4898

ESSIEM JA

ADJABENG JA

LUTTERODT JA

[1992]DLCA4898
																																						<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" >SINGIN<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL]<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">

[1992-93] 2 G B R 824 – 830&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 30TH JULY
1992<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">

ESSIEM
JA, ADJABENG JA, LUTTERODT JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>ADJABENG JA. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the conviction for murder of the appellant, Wumbei Singin,
by the High Court, Tamale. The appellant was convicted on 11 April 1990.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of the case are that on the morning of 17 August 1986 or thereabouts, the
appellant handed over a sheep and a bicycle to the headman of the Chidom-Yili
or Chidom-Atia village where the appellant lived. The appellant allegedly said
when handing over these items that he had found them at a nearby river bank
when returning from hunting. The village headman was no doubt surprised at this
find as he is alleged to have said that he had never seen such a thing before.
Sometime later, the body of the deceased, Issah Mahama, was seen floating in
the river. About three days later the police from Gushiegu came to the village
and arrested the appellant and three others. The three others were however
later released.<o:p></o:p>During
the police investigations into the matter, a statement was taken from the
appellant. In this statement the appellant admitted shooting the deceased. It
must be stated here that when the police came to the scene they examined the
body of the deceased and found some small holes in the “ribs and chest” of the
deceased. They caused the body to be buried. But about three months later the
body was exhumed to enable a post mortem examination to be conducted thereon.
After the completion of the investigations, the appellant was charged with
murder.<o:p></o:p>At
the trial even though the appellant's statement to the police was objected to,
the court admitted it after the trial judge had satisfied himself in a mini
trial that the statement had been made voluntarily in the presence of an
independent witness. The appellant, however, in his evidence at the trial
denied ever saying in his said statement that he had shot the deceased. After
the summing-up to the jury, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder.
The appellant appealed to this court on the ground that the verdict is
unreasonable and so ought to be set aside. Additional grounds of appeal were
also filed. The only grounds argued are grounds 5 and 7 of the additional
grounds of appeal. These state as follows:<o:p></o:p>“5. That the learned trial judge
misdirected the jury in rejecting totally outright the medical report which was
tendered in evidence by the prosecution and which was totally against them
thereby creating a reasonable doubt in their case.<o:p></o:p>7. That the learned trial judge erred
in law in holding that the statement of the accused made to the police was
admissible.”<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the appellant argued ground 7 first. She submitted that since the appellant
said at the beginning of his trial and in his evidence during the mini trial
that he could speak only Komba or Konkomba language, the trial judge was wrong
in basing his admission of the appellant's statement to the police on the
evidence that the appellant made his statement in Dagbani. Counsel argued
therefore that the appellant's confession statement to the police should have
been rejected by the trial judge for this reason.<o:p></o:p>There
seems to be no merit in counsel's argument as there was overwhelming evidence
before the judge at the mini-trial for the determination of the question as to
whether or not the appellant spoke to the independent witness in Dagbani. This
independent witness emphasised in his evidence that the appellant spoke to him
in Dagbani. The witness, Majid Mustapha, said as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The accused gave his statement in
Dagbani. The statement was taken down in writing by the police investigator. I
understand both English and Dagbani languages. After the statement had been
written in English I read it over to the accused in the Dagbani language. The
accused understood the Dagbani language. The accused understood the statement I
read to him in Dagbani and he thumbprinted the statement. After that I made a
certificate to that effect.”<o:p></o:p>Significantly
the witness was not challenged under cross-examination on his evidence that the
appellant spoke to him in Dagbani. In my view the trial judge was right in the
way he dealt with the issue. In his ruling at the end of the mini-trial he said
inter alia as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The issue is whether or not the
accused spoke Dagbani and he understood it. PWs 1 and 2 said he did speak
Dagbani. Accused on the other hand said he did not speak or understand Dagbani.
It is an issue of fact to be determined by this court.&nbsp; In my view I find PWs 1 and 2 to be credible
witnesses. I believe their testimony in its entirety. Accused has done little
beyond asserting that he did not understand Dagbani. It would have been
difficult for him to know that PW1 spoke to PW2 in Dagbani. Accused also spoke
Dagbani and the statement was read over to him in Dagbani.”<o:p></o:p>In
my view, once the trial judge's finding is supported by the evidence on the
record this court cannot interfere as the trial judge resolved the issue of
fact involved. Moreover the evidence shows clearly that the law as to the
taking of confession statements has been complied with. See Mahama v The
Republic [1980] GLR 100, holding (1) at p 101. It is my view therefore that the
trial judge was right in admitting in evidence the appellant's statement made
to the police. The appellant's ground 7 of the additional grounds of appeal
accordingly fails.<o:p></o:p>In
respect of ground 5 of the additional grounds of appeal argued it was contended
on behalf of the appellant that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the
medical report and that the misdirection resulted in a substantial miscarriage
of justice.<o:p></o:p>A
close look at the summing-up however does not seem to reveal any misdirection
of the jury by the trial judge as contended. From my study of the judge's
summing-up it seems to me that the learned judge directed the jury on all the
relevant aspects of the post mortem or medical report, exhibit A.<o:p></o:p>For
example the judge drew the attention of the jury to the evidence contained in
exhibit A that the deceased, Issah Mahama, was dead and asked them to consider
this evidence together with other pieces of evidence in deciding whether Issah
Mahama was indeed dead as claimed by the prosecution.<o:p></o:p>