THE REPUBLIC v. MICHAEL AGBANYO ALIAS OBINA & HAPPY GAWU
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- (SGD) N.C.A. AGBEVOR JUSTICE OF APPEAL
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved two accused persons charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery. The complainant was attacked by armed robbers who stole mobile phones, a motorbike, and cash. The accused were identified by the complainant during an identification parade. The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the essential elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the accused persons' alibi defenses, the court found them guilty based on the strong identification evidence provided by the complainant. The accused were convicted and sentenced to serve 5 years for conspiracy and 7 years for robbery, to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT
The two accused persons were charged with
a) Conspiracy to commit crime with a common purpose to commit Robbery under Section 23(1) of Act 29/60.
b) Robbery of one Godwin Senanu Ahorsu under Section 149 of Act 29/60.
The facts upon which these charges are laid are that the complainant is a businessman dealing in mobile phone cards and mobile money. He resides at Ho New Housing Estates with his family. On the 1/3/2015 at 2.10am, the complainant and his wife and their two year old child were sleeping in their bedroom when three masked men broke into the room and attacked them with a gun, a cutlass and other weapons. They requested them to bring out their money. Complainants told them that they had no money. The robbers beat them with a cutlass and succeeded in taking away seven mobile phones, a motor cycle with Registration Number M14-VR-1188 and cash the sum of GH€8,000. A complaint was made to the police and after a series of investigations the two accused were arrested. In an identification parade complainant identified A1 and A2 as some of those who robbed him.
Both accused pleaded not guilty to the two charges. This plea therefore places the burden of proof of the offences committed on the prosecution.
To discharge the burden on it, the prosecution called two witnesses and tendered three exhibits in this case. Each of the accused gave evidence on oath and called no witnesses.
For prosecution to obtain a conviction of an accused, it ought to prove the essential ingredients of each offence. In GLIGAH & ATISO VRS THE REPUBLIC (2010) SCGLR 870 at 879 stated -
"In other words whenever an accused is arraigned before any court in any criminal trial, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged against the accused person beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is therefore on the prosecution and it is only after a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution that the accused person is called upon to give his side of the story". The accused in a trial has no burden to discharge.
The two accused persons were charged in Count (1) One with conspiracy contrary to Section 23(1) of Act 29/60 which states –
SECTION 23 (1) - Where two or more persons agree to act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a criminal offence, whether with or without a previous concert or deliberation each of them commits a conspiracy to commit or abet the criminal offence.
COUNT 2