THE REPUBLIC v. KONJING FUSEINA AND FULINJU ERICA

JUDGMENT

1. The accused persons in this case have been charged with the below offence:

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Assault: Contrary to section 84 of the Criminal Offences Act 29/60.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

KONJING FUSEINA, aged 34yrs, unemployed and FULINJU ERICA, aged 28yrs,

teacher: For that on 6

th May, 2022 at about 8:00pm at Jonshegu in the Northern

Region and within the jurisdiction of this court, did unlawfully assault one Janet

Awudu.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by prosecution are that the complainant, Janet

Awudu is married to Mr. Maxwell Fulinja Dambe who is the brother of the accused

persons herein. The complainant at the time of this incident was pregnant. On the said

6/5/22 at about 8:00pm the accused person visited their brother who had been

involved in a motor accident and was nursing his injuries at home. However, on that

day the husband had left to visit a brother who was also involved in the said accident.

So, when accused persons were approaching complainant’s matrimonial home, they

sighted complainant locking the gate. After knocking severally on the gate and no one

coming to open it, accused persons then called their brother and complained about

what complainant had done. Their brother on returning from his outing opened the

gate for them to enter. Accused persons then picked up an argument with the

complainant. The argument degenerated into a fight causing injury to the

complainant. Complainant then reported the matter to DOVVSU, Tamale and a

medical form was issued. On return of the medical report, accused persons were

arrested. Accused persons, however, denied having assaulted the complainant. After

investigations, accused persons were charged with assault and arraigned before this

court.

DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE

3. Section 84 of Act 29 provides that a person who unlawfully assaults any person

commits a misdemeanour.

BURDEN OF PROOF

4. 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 carries that burden to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, there