GH - STATE v. OWUSU AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF BAIDOO J.

This is a summary trial involving the two above-named accused persons who have been charged with stealing cash the sum of ¢ 5,208.00 the property of the Ghana Farmers Co-operative ¢5,208-00, the Property Council at Kukuom, in or about December 1965, contrary to section 124 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The first accused Joseph Kwame Owusu was the secretary receiver, while the second accused, William Anto, was the treasurer of the said Ghana Farmers Co-operative Council in charge of the Kukuom district. The prosecution rested its case almost, entirely on a number of voluntary statements given by the accused persons to the police. The first prosecution witness, General Police Constable, Peter Ahenkora, who conducted the investigation, tendered various statements in evidence and not a single one was objected to by counsel for the accused when the statements were being tendered one after the other. From the evidence of the-first prosecution witness, I was satisfied that each of the accused wrote down in his own hand the various statements given by him to the police voluntarily and without any form of inducement whatsoever and as each of the statements was tendered without any objection by learned counsel for the two accused persons I had no difficulty whatsoever in finding as a fact that each statement was made voluntarily and therefore was admissible. The number of statements made by the first accused alone and tendered in evidence was four, viz. exhibits A, C, D, and G, each given on a different date. As against the second accused, the prosecution tendered four statements given by him on different dates and they were exhibits B, E, F and H.

The case against each accused must be considered separately, especially as each accused failed or refused to give evidence at all when called upon at the close of the case for the prosecution, and the prosecution is therefore relying on the various statements given by the accused to the police. Since the first accused did not go into [p.116] the witness-box to repeat those statements he gave in exhibits A, C, D and G, those statements bind the first accused only and cannot be evidence against his co-accused: see R. v. Ajani (1936) 3 W.A.C.A. 3. The same consideration applies to the statements in exhibits B, E, F and H made by the second accused which bind only the second accused.

To deal first with the case as against the first accused, the first prosecution witness gave evidence that (1)

JUDGMENT OF BAIDOO J.

To deal first with the case as against the first accused, the first prosecution witness gave evidence that (1)

STATE v. OWUSU AND ANOTHER

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT