THE REPUBLIC v. JOSEPH SEMEHA

J U D G E M E N T

CHARGE: Assault, Contrary to Section 84 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act

1. as amended.

SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE:

It is their case that the accused and the first complainant live in the same

vicinity. That the first complainant and the accused had not been in talking

terms for sometime due to a dispute.

That on 18th May, 2022 at about 7:45p.m, the 1st complainant with bruises on

his left arm, cheek, and a cut on his right toe with blood oozing from same, and

the 2nd complainant who also complained of severe pains in her right gum

reported at the police station. That they reported to the police that at about 7:15

p.m on the same day they were both assaulted by the accused person.

That the accused first assaulted the 1st complainant and when the 2nd

complainant intervened to ask the accused why he was assaulting the 1st

complainant, he hit her right jaw with his elbow, telling her in the process that

he assaulted the 1st complainant because he 1st complainant had reported him

for stealing cement.

That they were issued with police medical report forms which were duly

endorsed by a medical officer, exhibit ‘A’.

SUMMARY OF ACCUSED PERSON’S EVIDENCE:

It is his case that on the 18th May, 2022, he was not even at Asamankese to have

assaulted the complainants, and that he had travelled to Begoro to do some

work.

According to him, prior to his arrest, the 1st complainant stole somebody’s

mobile phone and he (accused) helped in arresting him. That they live in the

same vicinity but because he assisted in arresting the 1st complainant and

sending him to the police, the 1st complainant said he would cause trouble for

him. That true to his threat, the 1st complainant reported to a person for whom

he was building that one of his (accused) workers had stolen his cement. But he

ignored the 1st complainant. That he is innocent of the charge against him.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:

From all the evidence before me, the issues that came up for determination are:

1. Whether or not the accused was at Asamankese, and for that matter the

scene of crime on 18th May, 2022; and,

1. Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the charge of assault

against the accused beyond reasonable doubt within the meaning of

Sections 84, 85 and 86 of The Criminal Offence Act (supra).

To succeed, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove both the actus reuns

(act of the offence of assault) and mens rea (intent of the accused)