JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.
TWUMASI J. The appellant and his wife and one other now at large, were jointly charged with conspiracy to defraud and defrauding by false pretences contrary to sections 20 and 131 respectively, of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). Before the Circuit Court, Sekondi, only the appellant and his wife were jointly tried. The trial terminated in the conviction of the appellant and the acquittal of his wife.
The salient facts of the prosecution's case as I was able to assemble from the testimonies of the first and second prosecution witnesses (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) are as follows: The man at large went all the way from Agona Junction to Shama to inform the complainants, both being fishermen, that the appellant had imported some outboard motors and intended to sell them to would-be purchasers at ¢20,000 each. He arranged a meeting in the house of the appellant at Agona Junction at which the complainants were present for the purpose of negotiating for the purchase of the outboard motors. At this meeting the appellant made a representation that he had imported outboard motors for sale at ¢20,000 each and they were at the Takoradi Harbour. An agreed price of ¢16,000 was reached. The complainants had sufficient money to pay for the outboard motors but they felt hesitant of what the appellant told them. At that juncture, the appellant's wife appeared on the scene and added her voice to the story that the appellant had imported outboard motors from overseas and they had arrived at the Takoradi Harbour. The complainants testified that by what the appellant's wife said they believed the story and [p.1013] right on the spot they paid the sum of ¢32,000 to the appellant's wife who in turn gave the whole money to the appellant.
The complainants did not receive the outboard motors. On the day appointed by the appellant for the delivery of the outboard motors, the appellant brought some men in fake military uniform who upon seeing the complainants in the appellant's house beat them severely using their belts and accused the complainants of conspiracy with the appellant to steal outboard motors from the harbour. The story that the appellant framed was that while he was bringing the outboard motors from the harbour he was intercepted by military personnel who accused him of having stolen the outboard motors for the complainants to buy.
Subsequent investigation by Apremdu military personnel revealed that in actual fact those men
