Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
March 14, 2023
CIRCUIT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT
The Accused person was arraigned before this Court on March 16, 2022 for the offence
of Defilement Contrary to Section 101(1) 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.”
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 CAPage 2 of 9
The prosecution in order to discharge the burden placed upon them called one witness
and tendered four exhibits in evidence.
THE PROSECUTION CASE
The summary of prosecution case is that a case of an alleged defilement involving
accused was referred to the investigator the only witness for prosecution (PW1).
According to PW1, the survivor with father, the complainant, made a report to the
police on 08/03/2022 at about 12 noon. She obtained statements from the complainant
and the survivor and took investigation caution statement from accused. She issued
medical report form to the complainant to send the survivor to any government
hospital for treatment but they did not return the medical form to her. She visited the
scene at Assin Adubiase in the accused person’s room and the survivor showed police
where she and accused person had been having sexual intercourse on accused person’s
bed. She continued that on inspection she found nothing connecting the crime to the
scene. She obtained child health record from the complainant and later charged the
accused person. According to PW1, her investigation disclosed that the survivor was
defiled by accused based on her age, her statement and the fact that accused admitted
having sexual intercourse with the survivor. She stated that accused person
impregnated the survivor and attempting to abort the pregnancy by giving her
adutwumwaa bitters. She tendered in evidence the investigation caution and charge
statements
AI Generated Summary
Before the Circuit Court presided over by H/H Dorinda Smith Arthur (Mrs.), an accused was charged with defilement under Section 101(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The prosecution relied solely on the investigator (PW1) and four exhibits, asserting that the accused admitted sexual intercourse, impregnated the survivor, and attempted to abort the pregnancy with adutwumwaa bitters. PW1 issued a medical form that was never returned, visited the accused’s room at Assin Adubiase, and found no physical evidence. The survivor and complainant did not endorse witness statements or testify, and the child health record lacked basic entries, undermining its authenticity. Applying the Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code, and pertinent authorities, the court found the hearsay-based evidence insufficient to prove the essential elements of defilement or establish a prima facie case. It therefore entered a submission of no case, acquitting and discharging the accused.