JUDGMENT OF ADINYIRA J.
The first appellant, a blindman, was charged with the offence of stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Code, 1960 [p.572] (Act 29), as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Decree, 1969 (N.L.C.D. 398). The second appellant was charged with abetment of stealing contrary to sections 20 and 124(1) of Act 29. The third appellant, a cripple, was charged with dishonestly receiving contrary to section 146 of Act 29. The appellants were arraigned before the District Court Grade I, Koforidua. The appellants were convicted on 22 June 1989 and were each sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The appellants being dissatisfied, appealed against the said conviction and sentence on the following grounds: "(1) the judgment cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial; and (2) the sentence is harsh and excessive."
The facts of the case upon which the appellants were convicted were that during the month of July 1988 the first appellant was in his room when he heard the voices of some children passing. He called them and sent them to buy him some food. One of the boys returned and handed him something wrapped in a paper, and told him he had dropped something. He placed it on a table beside him. Later on, the second appellant visited him and the first appellant asked him what was contained in the paper. The second appellant informed him it contained some earrings. So the first appellant asked him to go to a goldsmith and find out what metal the earrings were made of. The third appellant accompanied him to a goldsmith who told them they were made of gold valued ¢1,200. The third appellant bought them when the first appellant authorised the second appellant to sell them to the goldsmith. The third appellant took the earrings to the complainant, who is a goldsmith, for another check as to their real value. The complainant claimed the earrings as part of his missing trinkets valued at ¢55,000. He therefore took the third appellant to the police station and lodged a complaint and the other appellants were also arrested.
In arguing ground (1), learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the first appellant dishonestly appropriated the earrings. He submitted that from the available facts, the earrings were lost articles. He referred to section 127 of Act 29 which deals with stealing of a thing found. He argued that the learned magistrate should have add
