THE REPUBLIC v. URMAR ABDUL WADU & ORS AT LARGE
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Her Ladyship Angelina Mensah-Homiah (Mrs.)
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The accused was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery. Evidence showed that the accused conspired with three others to rob the complainants. Despite his denial, inconsistencies in his statements led the court to find him guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery and sentence him to 10 years imprisonment. The robbery charge itself was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal on that count.
JUDGMENT
The accused in this case is standing trial for two offences under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29, namely: I) Conspiracy to commit crime to wit robbery and robbery, contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of the Act. Three others whose names appear on the charge sheet are said to be at large. To each of the three counts on the charge sheet, Accused pleaded not guilty, necessitating the instant trial.
A summary of the facts leading to the instant case are that the Accused together with others now at large attacked and robbed the complainants herein with sharp knives and made away with their cash and mobile phones. With the intervention of some volunteers, Accused was arrested at a notorious drug base at Atonsu. The 2nd complainant's bag containing an apron and a purse were retrieved from A1.
Under our laws, the offences of conspiracy and robbery are defined under section 23(1) and 150 of Act 29 in the following manner:
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."
Section 150:
“ A person who steals a things is guilty of robbery if and for the purpose of stealing he uses force or causes harm to any other person, or if he uses a threat or criminal assault or harm to any other person, with intent to prevent or overcome the resistance of the other person to the stealing of the thing."
The ingredients of the offences which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt under sections 11(2) and 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 N.R.C.D. 323 can be gleaned for the above quoted sections of the law. In respect of the conspiracy charge, there must be an agreement or common purpose to commit the act in issue. It is immaterial whether the act itself was actually committed or not. As regards the robbery charge, the requisite ingredients are: the use of force threat of criminal harm or causing harm with or without an offensive weapon to steal a person's property.
Three witnesses testified for the prosecution in this case. PW1, the first complainant herein, testified that at about 5:30am on 24/05/2014, he and his girlfriend, The second complainant were attacked at Atonsu S-line by a group of knife- wielding boys, including A1.One of those boys collected the second complainant's bag which contained an amount of GHS 300.00 and