THE REPUBLIC v. SIMON BEDIAKO @ PAA YAW

JUDGMENT

The accused person was charged with one count of the offence of Defilement contrary

to section 101 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 Act 29. The particulars of offence were

as follows;

Count 1;

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

SIMON BEDIAKO @ PAA YAW, AGED 18; For that on 21st Day of April, 2022 about

1200 hours at Sefwi Nsuosua in the Western North Circuit and within the jurisdiction of

this court, carnally knew Millicent Duku, a female aged 11 years.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Yaw Duku is a farmer and father of

the victim Millicent Duku, a class 2 pupil aged 11 of Sefwi Nsuosua whiles the accused

Simon Bediako @ Paa Yaw is an undertaker and also resident at the same locality. On

30/04/2022 the victim was showing signs of illness and a blood stain was detected in her pants. She was interviewed by her mother and the victim revealed that on 21/04/2022 at

about 12.00 hours whilst she was on her way to buy sugar, she met the accused person

who lured her to the bush and forcibly had sex with her. After the act, the accused

person warned the victim not to disclose it to anybody else she would die. On

01/05/2022, the case was reported to the Police, Sefwi Wiawso and referred to the

Regional DOVVSU for continuation. The victim was admitted at the Sefwi Wiawso

Municipal Hospital for 3 days to undergo medical treatment.

The accused person pleaded “not guilty” to the charge made against them.

The prosecution then assumed the burden to prove the charges levelled against the

accused persons beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with Section 13 (1) of the

Evidence Act, 1975, (NRCD 323).

Reasonable doubt was explained by Denning J (as he then was), in Miller v. Minister of

Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 @ 373 as "...it need not reach certainty, but it must carry a

high degree of probability, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond

a shadow of doubt.

Under section 11(2) of NRCD 323, in criminal cases the burden of proof is on the

prosecution throughout. The prosecution is required to produce sufficient evidence on

a fact essential to establish the guilt of the accused, so that on all the evidence a

reasonable mind could find the existence of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. In the

case of the accused except in cases where a statute throws the burden upon him, he is

not obliged to prove anything. All that the law requires of him is to raise a reasonable

doubt as to his guilt on the fact in issue