JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.
The appellant was convicted on two counts of: (a) conspiracy and (b) defrauding by false pretences, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour on each count.
The particulars of the first count of conspiracy are that during the month of May 1966 at Accra, the appellant did agree together with a person not traced with a common purpose to commit a crime by defrauding by false pretences. The only evidence relied on by the prosecution was that the appellant took the complainant about midnight to the Accra-Winneba road and the Teshie beach on about three occasions. On two of such occasions the appellant spoke and a voice replied to the hearing of the complainant. On these occasions the complainant had been taken there for the [p.1043] invocation of a spirit which could multiply the sum of £G2,000 offered by the complainant. It was not proved by the prosecution that the voice of the alleged spirit was that of a human being. Moreover the learned trial circuit judge could only observe in his judgment that the voice was human-like. Conspiracy involves agreement between two or more human beings and not between one human being and an unknown doubtful voice at midnight. The learned state attorney conceded at the beginning of his arguments that the case of conspiracy was weak and that he could not support the conviction. Accordingly the appellant's conviction on the first count of conspiracy is quashed and the sentence of three years imposed is hereby set aside.
I shall now deal with the second count of defrauding by false pretences. The particulars are that between the months of May and June 1966 at Accra, the appellant with intent to defraud, did obtain the consent of one Gabriel Awuku Adogla to part with cash the sum of ¢4,800 or £G2,000 by means of certain false representations, that is, by falsely representing to the said Adogla that the appellant was a spiritualist and that he had a spirit which could double money and which had helped some people to get money, and that if the said Adogla gave the appellant the sum of £G2,000 the spirit could double it to £G20,000 and that by means of such false representations the appellant succeeded in obtaining the sum of £G2,000 from the said Adogla which representation the appellant well knew at the time to be false. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the charge was bad for duplicity because the evidence showed that two separate sums of moneys, £G400 and £G1,600, were
