KWEKU REUBEN@MOGYA v. REPUBLIC
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- APALOO JA (PRESIDING)
- DUOSE JA
- HONYENUGA JA
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant and two others were convicted for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The trial judge's handling of the evidence and the burden of proof were scrutinized on appeal. The higher court affirmed the conviction, finding no misdirection in the trial judge's actions, and upheld the sentences given the gravity of the offence and the deterrent need for such a punishment.
J U D G M E N T
APALOO JA; The appellant and two other persons were charged with offences of Conspiracy to commit Robbery contrary to section 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29 and Robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29.
The Prosecution alleged that on 24th February, 2005 at about 10.15pm the complainant who is the Assistant Manager of the Goil Filling Station in Koforidua had returned home from work and was about to open the gate of his house when he was attacked by the appellant and his co-accused persons and four others at large. The appellant and his accomplices who were wielding guns succeeded in robbing the complainant of an amount of ¢120,000,000.00 now GH¢12,000.00 being sales for the day and a pump action gun he had in his vehicle. The robbers succeeded in robbing the second complainant (the wife of the complainant’s uncle) who was with the complainant of an amount of ¢2,000,000.00 now GH¢200.00, a nokia mobile phone, a pair of jeans trousers, a flask containing baby food and four necklaces. The Appellant and his accomplices absconded after collecting the items but through investigations by the Police, the appellant and two other persons namely Twum Ampofo and Yaw Boakye@Onua@Playboy were arrested. They pleaded not guilty to both charges and were tried and convicted. The appellant was sentenced to a term of 22 years on each count. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court the appellant is appealing on the following grounds;
“1. The trial Judge misdirected himself on the assessment of the evidence
on record when he failed to;
a. Find that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that in so doing it will rely on the weakness of the case of the appellant.
b. Find that you do not put together a multitude of suspicion and infer or find guilt therefrom.
c. Warn himself of the danger of convicting the appellant based on the evidence of a co-accused and in the absence of any concrete independent witness.
The trial Judge failed to analyse the entire prosecution’s case alongside the case of the defence before arriving at the decision to convict. [This ground was modified by court to convey its proper meaning].”
From ground 1(a) we are left in no doubt that the appellant is challenging the assessment of the evidence on record by the trial Judge. By section 11 of the Evidence Act, 1975 the Prosecution has the duty of proving its ca