Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
June 16, 2023
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGEMENT
There are six counts of offences falling under three main charges laid against the
accused and they are the ususal offences filed in stealing cases. He is charged with
causing unlawful damage contrary to section 172, unlawful entry contrary to section
152 and Stealing 4 items the property of Moree Senior High Technical School contrary
to section 124(1) all of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 Act 29. The particulars of offence
in summary provide that the accused unlawfully caused damage to the door to the
office of the headmistress of Moree Senior High Technical school to gain entry for the
purpose of stealing a double decker fridge, an amplifier machine, computer monitor,
and a computer keyboard.
The prosecution tasked with proof of the case relied on the evidence of 3 witnesses
including the investigator. In the evidence of the prosecutions first witness he claims
that he went to the Moree Senior High Technical School for a visit and discovered that
the office of the head mistress had been broken into and items stolen. After taking
pictures of the state of the break in which were tendered by the prosecution; he went
and informed the headmistress. He then returned with her and another staff and there
they met the thieves attempting to carry the stolen items away. They chased the thieves
but were unable to catch them. The witness in his evidence however could not say if the
accused was one of the persons they saw trying to carry the stolen items away. He
however claims that he later saw the accused and the driver entering the bush. This led
them to chase after the driver when he later emerged from the bush.
The prosecution’s case hinged on the evidence of their last witness, that is the taxi
driver. His evidence is that it was the accused who hired his services on that day to
carry firewood from the bush. When the accused led him to the bush, he discovered the
item the accused wanted to transport was a fridge so he refused to take it. It was on his
way back to town that he was stopped by the prosecution witness. It was the word of
the accused person and this witness, what is referred to as oath versus oath. In such
cases the testimony must be critically examined. There are questions that arise from the
evidence of this witness. One is the first prosecution’ witness’ evidence that there was
more than one thief on the day in question and that they run away upon seeing the
witnesses and those accompanying him. The driver
AI Generated Summary
HER HONOR Veronique Praba Tetteh, a Circuit Court Judge, adjudicated a theft-related prosecution arising from a break-in at the headmistress’s office of Moree Senior High Technical School. The accused faced counts for causing unlawful damage (section 172), unlawful entry (section 152), and stealing items including a double-decker fridge, an amplifier, a computer monitor, and a keyboard under section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The first prosecution witness discovered the break-in, photographed it, and later saw unidentified thieves trying to carry the items but could not identify the accused. The prosecution’s case centered on a taxi driver who said the accused hired him for firewood but led him to a bush where a fridge had been placed; the driver refused. Finding reasonable doubt on the theft-related counts, the court acquitted the accused. Relying on sections 146, 147, and 156 of Act 29, the court convicted him of dishonestly receiving and imposed a one-day custodial sentence and a 12‑month good behaviour bond.