Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
August 9, 2023
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT
The accused person was charged with one count of cruelty to animal contrary to section
302(1a) of Act 29/60.
The brief facts attached to the charge are that Complainant in this case Ayisi Samuel
aged 56 is a farmer whiles the accused person Akakpo Kpeglo aged 42 is also a farmer
and both reside at Begoro. For some time now accused person has been killing the
complainant’s pigs for no apparent reason. On 27th day of June, 2022 at about 6:00pm,
complainant realized that two of his pigs valued GHȼ 1,600.00 have been butchered by
the accused person. A report was made to Police and accused person was arrested.
During interrogation, accused person admitted killing the said pigs with cutlass for
destroying his house. However, he intimated that the pigs normally comes to his house
and dig out a hole under his building and caused damage to his Bio-Digester toilet hence
his action. Accused person after killing the pigs, he threw one of the carcass into a public
toilet at the back of his house. After investigations, accused person was charged with the
offence as contained in the charge sheet before this court.
The accused appeared before the Court on 3rd August, 23 and when the charge was read
and explained to him, he pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.
The evidential burden was therefore on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt required by law.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED AND APPLICATION OF LAW
Under Section 13 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975, (NRCD 323), prosecution has to
prove its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt
according to P K Twumasi in his book Criminal Law in Ghana (1996) Page 124
states that the doubt, "must be a reasonable probability and not a fanciful possibility.”
It was held in Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 A.E.R. 372 at 744 that "proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. The law
would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the
course of justice. If the evidence is strong against a man as to leave a remote possibility
in his favour which can be dismissed with a sentence," of course it is possible" but not
the least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt but nothing short of that
will suffice."
Prosecution in proving its case called two witnesses and tendered three exhibits into
evidence.
PW1 was Ayisi Samuel he told the Court he lives in Begoro and work as a
AI Generated Summary
In this criminal case, Akakpo Kpeglo was charged with one count of cruelty to animal contrary to section 303(1)(a) of Act 29/60. The complainant, Ayisi Samuel, alleged that the accused killed two of his pigs valued at GHȼ 1,600.00 on 27th June 2022. The accused admitted killing the pigs with a cutlass but claimed he did so because the pigs had been destroying his house foundation and bio-digester toilet by digging holes under them. The prosecution called two witnesses: Ayisi Samuel (the complainant) and Detective Inspector Set Annan (the investigating officer). The accused gave evidence from the witness box and called one witness, Jonathan Kumi, who corroborated that the complainant's pigs had been causing damage to properties in the area. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused's act of slashing the pigs with a cutlass amounted to cruelty as defined under section 303(1)(a) of Act 29/60. The prosecution did not establish how one slash of a cutlass amounted to cruelly beating, kicking, ill-treating, over-loading, torturing, infuriating, or terrifying the pigs. Relying on the case of Azu alias Ahor v The Republic (1970) CC 53, which held that instantaneous killing of an animal does not amount to cruelty, the Court acquitted and discharged the accused.