GABRIEL KWAO BOSO vs. THE REPUBLIC [2009]DLSC2480

Date	2009-02-04
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. J3/2/2007
Citation No.	[2009]DLSC2480

WOOD C.J (PRESIDING)

BROBBEY JSC

ANSAH JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC.

SIR DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE APPELLANT

MATTHEW AMPONSAH (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2009]DLSC2480
																																						<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" >GABRIEL KWAO BOSO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. J3/2/2007<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: 4th February 2009.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SIR
DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE APPELLANT<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">

MATTHEW
AMPONSAH (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

WOOD
C.J &nbsp;(PRESIDING), BROBBEY &nbsp;JSC, ANSAH &nbsp;JSC, ANIN YEBOAH &nbsp;JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>J U D G M E N T<o:p></o:p>WOOD,
(MRS) CJ:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Brief Facts<o:p></o:p>On
the 21st of January, 2009, we affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal
which substituted the appellant’s murder conviction for manslaughter.
Furthermore, we enhanced the sentence of 15 years imposed on him to 21 years
with hard labour and reserved our reasons. We now assign our reasons for those
decisions that we took. <o:p></o:p>The
appellant appeared at the jury trial in the High Court Tamale, as the 1st
Accused, was convicted with one other person for the murder of one Debora
Biggor and sentenced to death, for conspiracy to murder and murder. On appeal,
the Court of Appeal substituted his conviction of murder with manslaughter and
imposed a sentence of 15 years with hard labour. It is from this decision of
the Court of Appeal that the Appellant, has appealed to this court against both
conviction and sentence on the following original and additional grounds, four
in all.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>GROUNDS
OF APPEAL<o:p></o:p>The
Court of Appeal erred by convicting the Appellant for manslaughter when there
is no evidence that he was responsible for the death of Debora Bigoor.<o:p></o:p>The
Court of Appeal erred by not acquitting and discharging the Accused person
(appellant herein) when the evidence on record is that he mutilated the corpse
of Debora Bigoor which act cannot constitute manslaughter.<o:p></o:p>Sentence
is excessive in view of the offence<o:p></o:p>The
sentence did not take effect from the date of offence.<o:p></o:p>The
deceased, who the appellant alleges was pregnant, visited the appellant, a
Principal Medical Assistant in his bungalow at the Nakpanduri Health Centre on
the 22nd of December 2000 complaining of abdominal bleeding. According to him,
in order to stop the bleeding, he injected her with ergometrin and oxytocin and
asked that she rest in his room until she felt better to go home.<o:p></o:p>The
evidence however also reveals that the other person with whom the accused was
charged with the two offences, and who was alleged to have invited the deceased
out on that fateful night, which allegation he vehemently denied, rather found
the Debora’s corpse on the bed of the 1st accused covered with a blanket.
Alarmed at this discovery, and as a result of the close relationship between
the two of them, he hired a motor bike and chased the appellant to Gambaga
whereupon on being informed of his discovery, the Appellant promised to take
care of the mess. The Appellant however did not report the case to the Police
as promised, which compelled the 2nd accused to report to the chief’s palace
leading to his arrest by the police.<o:p></o:p>The
incontrovertible facts reveal further that, the appellant who administered
dangerous drugs to Debora Bigoor, who was later discovered dead, undertook the
grisly task of dismembering the dead body into pieces, crushing the skull and
disposing of all these parts, together with the internal organs, namely the
liver, heart, spleen, lungs, uterus, intestines and the brain in such a
manner&nbsp; that those vital internal organs
could not be retrieved to aid pathological tests in determining the exact cause
of death. <o:p></o:p>Also
undisputed is the fact that it was the Appellant who led the police to retrieve
the dissected flesh from his manhole into which he had dumped those body parts,
one hundred and fifty pieces in all, and the bones also from another pit he led
them to. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On a critical examination of the record, we
find that the appellate court dealt fairly with the appellant by examining the
evidence with the greatest care and detail, the trial judge’s summing up and the
verdict which was returned, namely the verdict of murder. Their Lordship’s
returned a verdict of manslaughter in substitution, concluding that Debora’s
death was not intentionally caused. The learned justices rightly in our view
identified the pivotal issue in this case. Their Lordships reasoned that:<o:p></o:p>“On (sic) thorny issue in this case
undoubtedly relates to the cause of death. Certainly the medical report is not
helpful because while the prosecution contended that the cause of death was the
skinning and crashing of the deceased’s skull, the accused persons contended by
their statements to the police and their testimonies in court that death had
already taken place at the time when A1 carried out his brutal exercise of
crushing the body. What then caused the death? The only evidence available came
from the 1st Accused who stated that he injected the deceased with some Class A
drugs which belongs to the category of dangerous drugs in the medical
classification of drugs. If the story of the accused persons is anything to go
by one would say that the cause of death has not been found by the medical
officer who conducted the autopsy. The result was that the jury was left with
the duty of inferring the cause of death from the</main>