THE REPUBLIC vs. URMAR ABDUL WADU & ORS AT LARGE [2015]DLHC3571

Date	2015-05-05
Suit No.	CASE NO.1105/14
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3571

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2015]DLHC3571
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>URMAR ABDUL WADU &amp;
ORS AT LARGE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), KUMASI]<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">

CASE NO.1105/14&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; &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: 5TH MAY, 2015<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">

HER
LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>The accused in this case
is standing trial for two offences under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act
29, namely: I) Conspiracy to commit crime to wit robbery and robbery, contrary
to sections 23(1) and 149 of the Act. Three others whose names appear on the
charge sheet are said to be at large. To each of the three counts on the charge
sheet, Accused pleaded not guilty, necessitating the instant trial.<o:p></o:p>A summary of the facts
leading to the instant case are that the Accused together with others now at
large attacked and robbed the complainants herein &nbsp;with sharp knives and made away with their
cash and mobile phones. With the intervention of some volunteers, Accused was
arrested at a notorious drug base at Atonsu. The 2nd complainant's bag
containing an apron and a purse were retrieved from A1.<o:p></o:p>Under our laws, the
offences of conspiracy and robbery are defined under section 23(1) and 150 of
Act 29 in the following manner:<o:p></o:p>Section 23 (1):<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Where two or more persons agree to act together
with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a criminal offence,
whether with or without a previous concert or deliberation, each of them commits
a conspiracy to commit or abet the criminal offence."<o:p></o:p>Section 150:<o:p></o:p>"
A person who steals&nbsp; a things is guilty
of robbery if and for the purpose of stealing he uses force or causes harm to
any other person, or if he uses a threat or criminal assault or harm to any
other person, with intent to prevent or overcome the resistance of the other
person to the stealing of the thing."<o:p></o:p>The ingredients of the
offences which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt under
sections 11(2) and 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 N.R.C.D. 323 can be gleaned
for the above quoted sections of the law.&nbsp;
In respect of the conspiracy charge, there must be an agreement or
common purpose to commit the act in issue. It is immaterial whether the act
itself was actually committed or not. As regards the robbery charge, the
requisite ingredients are: the use of force threat of criminal harm or causing
harm with or without an offensive weapon to steal a person's property.<o:p></o:p>Three witnesses testified
for the prosecution in this case.&nbsp; PW1,
the first complainant herein, testified that at about 5:30am on 24/05/2014, he
and his girlfriend, The second complainant were attacked at Atonsu S-line by a
group of knife- wielding boys, including A1.One of those boys collected the
second complainant's bag which contained an amount of GHS 300.00 and one of the
accused persons slapped her. PW1 further told the court that these attackers
collected their mobile phones as well. Continuing, PW1 said he rushed home to
take money for second complainant to use for her transportation and whilst
returning, he saw four men at the S-line so he called some boys from that area
and narrated his ordeal to them. They escorted him to the base of the accused
persons and even though many people were present, PW1 said he could only
identify A1. A1 showed them where the bag was and its contents had been emptied.
From there, the witness said A1 led them to search for his master but he could
not be traced.<o:p></o:p>PW2, Akwasi Tawiah Bright
is the Atonsu S-Line resident who escorted PW1 to the area where A1 was found.
According to him, A1 mentioned the name of another boy who took part in the act
and who had taken the items away.PW2 said A1 took them round for four hours but
failed to locate his so called accomplice. Later, PW2 said A1 told him two boys
who were seen at the base where he was arrested took part in the act.&nbsp; In cross-examination, A1 asked PW2 whether he
saw any knife on him. PW2 answered thus"<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No. We
asked you whether you knew PW1. You said yes and that you were "keeping the
gate" whilst the other three robbed him.<o:p></o:p>PW2 explained that A1 said
he was looking out for the other three who did the act. <o:p></o:p>PW3 is the detective who
investigated the case. He visited the crime scene. He told the court that A1
and PW1 described how the robbery took place. He received instructions to
charge A1 and the others at large . And having done so, A1 volunteered
statements to him. The investigation and charge cautioned statements of A1 and
the bag belonging to the 2nd Complainant which was retrieved were tendered in
evidence as exhibits A, B and C.<o:p></o:p>A1 in cross-examination
sought to distance himself from the alleged robbery. However, PW1 maintained
that he was one of the people who robbed him at knife point. PW2 and PW3 also
emphasized that A1 admitted before them that he attacked PW1 with a knife. In
the words of PW3,&nbsp; A1 even described how
he attacked PW1.<o:p></o:p>In the investigation
cautioned statement of A1 (exhibit B) which A1 also relied on in his charge
cautioned statement </main>