JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.
This appeal involves considerations of (a) the irregular and wrong admission into the proceedings of matters relating to the previous criminal conduct and character of the appellant; (b) the failure of the trial magistrate in making any findings on the primary issues joined between the appellant and the respondent and lastly (c) the legal position where the accused has been charged under a section which creates a lesser offence when the evidence adduced by the prosecution supports an offence of a higher degree under another section. See section 154 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30).
The appellant in this case was tried and convicted in the District Court Grade II at Ofuase on 14 May 1970 of the offence of threatening contrary to section 74 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and was sentenced to a term of twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour against which conviction and sentence he has appealed to this court. Although the appeal itself is straightforward and far from any complexity, it raises a number of interesting points for consideration as a result of which on 18 December 1960 when the appeal was heard, I allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence of the trial court and acquitted and discharged the accused with the intimation to give reasons later which I now proceed to do.
At the hearing of the appeal, I called on the respondent to support the conviction and directed the learned state attorney's attention to the three points raised for consideration in this appeal. Mr. Forster, rightly in my view, declined to support the conviction.
In order to appreciate therefore the force behind these points it will be necessary to recite in a nutshell the prosecution's case as presented against the appellant which was as follows: The appellant, who describes himself as a farmer of Kotokuom, is alleged to have approached the complainant in this case on or about 5 May 1970 and demanded the refund of an amount of N¢4.00 which, according to the appellant, the complainant demanded as a fee for an invitation by the appellant to have sexual intercourse with her. When the complainant failed to honour this invitation and denied having taken any said sum or any sum at all from the appellant, he threatened to kill her. According to the prosecution this threat by the appellant to kill the complainant was repeated on other occasions with such seriousness that one of the prosecution witnesses t
