BOAKYE vs THE REPUBLIC [1999]DLSC117

Date	1999-03-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC117

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

AKUFFO JSC

DAVID KUDOADZI FOR THE APPELLANT.

OWUSU

CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY

FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1999]DLSC117
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">BOAKYE<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 740<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date: 3 MARCH 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:DAVID KUDOADZI
FOR THE APPELLANT.OWUSU, CHIEF
STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:EDWARD WIREDU,
BAMFORD-ADDO, KPEGAH, ADJABENG AND AKUFFO JJSC___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT OF BAMFORD-ADDO JSC<o:p></o:p>Bamford-Addo JSC delivered the first judgment at the invitation of
Edward Wiredu JSC. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal
which upheld the judgment of the Regional Public Tribunal convicting the
appellant on a charge of murder, contrary to section 46 of the Criminal Code,
1960 (Act 29). The facts, according to the prosecution, are that the appellant
and the deceased engaged in a fight but, were separated. The appellant was
alleged to have gone to his house nearby to pick a knife with which he chased
the deceased and stabbed him resulting in his death. The defence case however
was that a quarrel ensued between the appellant and some boys, including the
deceased near the appellant’s house. He alleged that he was pushed down,
stamped upon and beaten with sticks by the boys and as a result sustained
injuries. He said while he was being beaten, he fell on an object which he
picked up and in self-defence stabbed the deceased with it, resulting in his
death. He said the fight was never separated before he injured the deceased and
denied going home after the alleged separation to pick a knife with which he
stabbed the deceased.<o:p></o:p>After hearing evidence, the Regional Public Tribunal on 9 August
1991 convicted the appellant for murder and sentence him to death by firing
squad. Dissatisfied with his conviction, the appellant appealed to the Court of
Appeal, which dismissed the appeal in February 1995.<o:p></o:p>The appellant has now appealed to this court on the ground that:
“The judgment cannot be supported having regard to the evidence on record.” For
the appellant, it was submitted that since an accused is presumed innocent
until his guilt is proved, the prosecution had a duty to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. That in this case, the prosecution failed to satisfy the
stated burden of proof and further, that sufficient doubt was created in the
facts, the benefit of which should have been given to the appellant.<o:p></o:p>The defence of the appellant was one of self-defence and having
regard to the evidence, provocation. It is not doubted that it was the
appellant who caused the injury to the deceased with a sharp Instrument leading
to his death. In support of the prosecution case, three witnesses were called,
all friends of the deceased who were with him at the time of the fight.
According to their evidence, the appellant fought with the deceased and the two
were separated. After the separation the appellant went home to pick a knife
and while the deceased and his friends were going away from the scene of the
fight, they heard shouts warning them to run because the appellant was chasing
them with a knife. The appellant caught up with the deceased who was running
but had bent down to pick something and stabbed him in the chest with a knife.
The harm caused to the deceased was unlawful and the deceased died while he was
being conveyed to the Komfo Anokye Hospital in Kumasi.<o:p></o:p>The Regional Public Tribunal when considering the evidence of the
three prosecution witness, ie the first, second and third prosecution witnesses
rightly warned itself 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">&nbsp;“The first three witnesses
were all in the group of the deceased that night. They were part of the events
culminating in the death of deceased. It is incumbent upon the tribunal
therefore to put their evidence under the closest scrutiny and the minutest
examination. This is so because they clearly have a stake in the matter and
human nature being what it is there is no gainsaying the fact that the
possibility of their engaging in falsehood or twisting the evidence by
embellishment of their story is real. A friend of theirs, the deceased, had
died, naturally they would bear whoever caused the death of that friend a
grudge and would obviously want to see such person punished. Again they were
present when this occurred. The death was a result of a fight in which they
could not be total spectators.<o:p></o:p>With this caution the tribunal set out to examine the evidence
before it and concluded 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">“When we take all the evidence adduced together and apply the test
in the case of Amartey v The State [1964] GLR 25</main>