Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. On 9th June, 2022 A1 (18yrs) and A2 (15yrs) were arraigned before this court on the
charges of conspiracy to steal and stealing, contrary to sections 23(1) and 124(1) of Act
29. The particulars of the offences stated that A1 and A2 did agree to act together with
a common purpose to commit crime, to wit, ‘stealing’ and stealing five (5) cattle
valued at GHS15,000.00 belonging to one Wahab Abdullah. On the same charge sheet,
A3 (30yrs) was charged with dishonestly receiving the five (5) cattle, contrary to
section 146 of Act 29.
2. A1 and A2 pleaded guilty and were convicted on their own plea and punished.
However, A3 pleaded not guilty. This judgment regards the charge against A3.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The facts as given by the prosecution are that on 26th May, 2022 the complainant,
Wahab Abdullah, sent his seven (7) cattle to the bush near his house for grazing but
later realized that five (5) cannot be traced. On 2nd June, 2022 complainant then
received information that two Fulani men had been arrested at Gbanyamli, a suburb
of Tamale for stealing two (2) sheep and five (5) cattle and had sold same to A3. On
receipt of this information, complainant lodged a complaint at the police station and
the police went to Gbanyamli and arrested A1 and A2. During interrogation, A1 and
A2 admitted to the offence and led the police to the house of A3 at Zelendo, a village
under the Karaga District, as the one who bought complainant’s cattle at
GHS15,000.00. A3 was arrested and during interrogation, he admitted to having
bought the stolen sheep from A1 and A2 for his butchery work but denied that of the
cattle. They were later arraigned before this court.
DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE
4. Section 146 of Act 29 provides that, “A person who dishonestly receives any property
which he knows to have been obtained or appropriated by any offence punishable
under this Chapter shall be liable to the same punishment as if he had committed that
offence.”
BURDEN OF PROOF
5. By a plea of not guilty, the accused puts himself in charge of the court, meaning that
his guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The mandatory requirement that
the guilt of the person charged ought to be established beyond reasonable doubt and
the burden of persuasion on the party claiming that the person was guilty, has been
provided for in ss. 11(2), 13(1), 15 and 22 of Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323).
Significantly, whereas the prosecution ca