THE REPUBLIC v. DAWOO MUSAH

JUDGMENT

The Accused person was arraigned before this Court on February 11, 2022 for the

offence of Defilement Contrary to Section 101(2) of The Criminal and Other Offences

Act, 1960 Act 29.

The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against him for which

reason the prosecution assumed the burden of proof and must prove the charge against

the accused person beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with;

Section 11(2) of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323 states;

“In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence when it is on the prosecution as to any

fact which is essential to guilt requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on

all the evidence a reasonable mind will find the existence of the facts beyond reasonable doubt.”Page 2 of 15

Further, Section 13(1) of NRCD 323 provides that the standard of proof is nothing less

than proof beyond reasonable doubt no matter the offence charged.

See the case of Ampabeng Vrs Republic [1977] 2 GLR 171 CA

Under the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) the burden of proof has two elements –

namely, the burden of persuasion and the burden of producing evidence. The two are

not the same. The burden of persuasion as provided in Section10 of the Act involves

the establishment of a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the

court; or the party raises a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or non-existence

of a fact, or that the party establishes the existence or non-existence of a fact. This

burden is on both the prosecution and the defence.

In determining what is proof beyond reasonable doubt, our courts generally rely on the

definition of Lord Denning in MILLER VRS MINISTER OF PENSIONS [1947] AII

E.R. 372 AT 374. In short the evidence that the prosecution adduced in proof of the

charges must preclude every reasonable hypothesis except those which tend to support

the charges. Conversely, the accused persons only need to adduce evidence which

raises reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

The prosecution in order to discharge the burden placed upon them called two

witnesses and tendered in evidence five exhibits.Page 3 of 15

THE PROSECUTION CASE

The summary of prosecution case is that PW1 is the survivor in this case. According to

her she is thirteen years old and lives with accused person(AP) in the same house. She

sleeps with her grandmother and her little brother. Her grandmother travelled and she

was with her little brother alone in