KARIM FULANI & ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING)
- G.TORKORNOO (MRS), J.A.
- A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.), J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, Peter Aning, was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, he appealed on several grounds. The appellate court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and identified several inconsistencies and weaknesses in the evidence presented. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and highlighted the necessity for reasons to be given in judgments to ensure they are not perceived as unreasonable.
J U D G M E N T
A. M. DOMAKYAAREH(MRS), J. A
1. The appellant as second accused (A2) was charged together with one other (Karim Fulani – A1) on two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery contrary to Section 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act 1960, Act 29 as amended by Act 646 of 2003. They were arraigned before the High Court, Kumasi for trial. They pleaded Not Guilty. The prosecution therefore had the burden of leading evidence to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. This is prescribed under Section 11 (2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) which states as follows: -
“Burden of producing evidence
(2) In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to a fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis added).
2. At the end of the trial, they were both found guilty on both counts and convicted. They were each sentenced to twenty-five years Imprisonment with Hard Labour (I.H.L.) on each of the two counts to run concurrently. The sentences were to take effect from the day of their arrest.
Dissatisfied with both the conviction and the sentence, Peter Aning the Second accused mounted the instant appeal on seven grounds of appeal, namely:-
The Court erred when it disregarded the testimony of the witness of the 2nd accused person
The sentence was wrong in law and has therefore occasioned miscarriage of justice
Sentence was excessive and harsh
Mitigation of sentence
The judgment cannot be supported having regard to the evidence on record
The Court erred when in its judgment it sought to put the onus of proof on the accused
Additional grounds of Appeal will be filed upon receipt of the Record of Appeal.
No additional grounds were filed.
3. FACTS OF THE CASE:
According to the Record of Appeal, the facts of this case were never given in court in spite of the fact that per the Record, on the 8th of November 2005, the Court adjourned the case to 17th November 2005 for the facts to be presented. All that can be gleaned of the facts is what can be found in the Charge Sheet and the evidence during the trial. The Charge Sheet is reproduced below:-
“ COUNT ONE
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ROBBERY CONTRARY TO SECTION 23(1) AND 149 OF ACT 29/60
PARTICULARS OF OFFEN