Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
The accused has been charged with stealing, contrary to section 124 (1) of the Criminal
Offences Act, Act 29 of 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 All ER 372 per the indomitable Lord Denning.
Also, see sections 11(2) and 13 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323). 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 relevant facts of the case are that the accused was the Wasa Akropong District
Manager of Sika Aba Buyers Limited, a licensed cocoa buying company. During the 2019
– 2020 cocoa season, the company gave the Accused GH¢618,000.00 to purchase one
thousand and two hundred bags of cocoa beans for the company. The prosecution
alleged that the accused stole GH¢82,400.00 of the amount equivalent to 160 bags of cocoa
beans.
Section 124 (1) of Act 29 provides that a person who steals commits a second degree
felony. Section 125 of Act 29 defines stealing. It provides that a person steals who
dishonestly appropriates a thing of which that person is not the owner. The essential
elements of the offence of stealing are:
1. The person charged must have appropriated the thing allegedly stolen,
2. The appropriation must be dishonest and
3. The person charged must not be the owner of the thing allegedly stolen; see
Brobbey and Others V the Republic [1982-83].
The prosecution called three witnesses who testified in proof of the offence. At the close
of the prosecution’s case, there was undisputed evidence that the accused could not
account for 160 bags of cocoa beans equivalent to GH¢82,400.00 belonging to Sika Aba
Buyers Limited. The accused even admitted under cross-examination that the amount
was GH¢97,000.00. Based on the above admitted evidence, the court ruled that the
prosecution had made a prima facie case against the accused and so the accused was
directed to open his defence.
The accused thereafter opened his defence. He testified and also called three witnesses
who testified for him.
The defence or the explanation of the accused as contained in his previous statements to
the police and his witness statement as well as the witness statements of DW1, DW2 and
DW3 is that the outstand