Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
No Legal Representation for Accused.
Chief Inspector Veronica Tibson for the Republic.
The Accused has been charged with stealing, contrary to Section 124 (1) of the Criminal
Offences Act, Act 29, 1960. The accused having denied the offence, the burden is put on
the prosecution to adduce sufficient admissible evidence to establish the ingredients of
the offence. The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; see Miller
V Minister of Pensions [1942] 2 A11 ER 372 per the indomitable Lord Dening. Also, see
sections 11 (2) and 13 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975(Act323). The accused for his part only
has to introduce evidence which creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court
regarding the prosecution’s case.
The evidence of the prosecution is that the complainant, Kwabena Owusu who is a 35
year old farmer, bought an unregistered Haojin Motorbike and gave it to the accused
under an agreement for the latter to use it for commercial purposes. The accused then
used the motorbike for commercial purposes for two weeks and reported to the
complainant that the motorbike had been stolen. The prosecution alleged that the accused
thereafter went into hiding until he was arrested.
The accused has vehemently denied the charge in his previous statements to the police
and in his oral evidence in court. The burden was therefor put on the prosecution to lead
sufficient evidence to establish the ingredients of stealing. Evidence is said to be sufficient
when it is of such probative force as to convince and which if uncontradicted will justify
a conviction; see The State V Ali Kassena [1962] 1GLR 144 per Crabbe JSC.
What evidence has the prosecution led to prove its allegations against the accused? The
prosecution called two witnesses who testified in proof of the offence. PW1 is also the
complainant. PW1 stated in paragraph 4 of his witness statement that he only suspected
the accused of stealing the said motorbike. PW1 also stated that he was reliably informed
that the accused and his brother sold the motorbike. PW1’s evidence can only amount to
suspicions and hearsay. Multitude of suspicions cannot amount to proof in law; see State
V Ali Kassena [1962] 1 GLR 144. PW2 is the police investigator. She narrated how she
investigated the case.
The prosecution tendered in evidence the cautioned statement of the accused through
PW1. The accused has strongly denied the charge in his said statements. His oral evidence
in court