Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
July 18, 2025
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
The Appellant was charged with the offence of causing damage contrary to Section 172 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 [Act 29]. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offence and at the end of the trail was convicted by the Circuit Court, Techiman and sentenced to a fine of 1000 P. U. or in default 6 months imprisonment, which said fine has been paid. It is from this judgment that the Appellant has appealed to this court on the following grounds;
“i. That the conviction is against the evidence on record
ii. That the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence of unlawful damages levelled against the convict.”
Before examining the grounds canvassed by counsel for the Appellant I would briefly relate why the appeal was launched against the said judgment. The Appellant was charged with the offence of causing unlawful damage contrary to Section 172 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 [Act 29/60] for the demolition of a two apartment uncompleted structure belonging to the complainant, which was on a plot of land which was under litigation between the Appellant’s father and the Complainant. None of the Prosecution witnesses saw the Appellant pulling down the building. Their evidence was purely circumstantial because the prosecution witnesses testified that the Appellant had earlier issued threats to demolish the said structure. The Learned Judge in his Judgment fixed the Appellant with guilt because the threats issued by him were corroborative of his involvement in that criminal act.
Counsel for the Appellant, arguing ground one submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses testified that they saw the Appellant causing that damage to the building. It was further submitted that the learned judge erred when he found that the evidence of PW1 to the effect that the Appellant issued those threats were corroborated by the other Prosecution witnesses merely because they repeated those claims, where in fact, there was no credible evidence that the Appellant issued those threats on those occasions. In counsel’s view the prosecution did not discharge the evidential burden on it and the court asking the Appellant to open his defence occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice on him.
On the second ground it was also submitted that the prosecution failed to proof the essential ingredients of the offence of causing unlawful damage. Ground “ii” of the grounds of appeal shall be subsumed under ground “I” because ground “I” is capable
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from the Circuit Court, Techiman, the High Court (His Lordship Justice Kwame Gyamfi Osei) reviewed the record of a conviction for causing unlawful damage to an uncompleted two-apartment structure on disputed land. No witness saw the Appellant demolish the building; the trial court relied on testimony that he had threatened to do so and applied Sections 18(2) and 38 of the Evidence Act (NRCD 323), presuming he intended the ordinary consequences of his threats, and cited identity cases. The High Court held that threats alone do not constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence of guilt and that Section 38 cannot be used to establish specific intent in criminal prosecutions. The identity authorities were inapposite. Finding a miscarriage of justice, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted and discharged the Appellant, and ordered a refund of the fine after the time for further appeal lapses.