Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
December 20, 2023
CIRCUIT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
The accused person is charged with the ofence of stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act. The particulars of offence provide that
Kwame Asamoah, Steel Bender, 35 years old: On 13/11/22 at about 5:00 am at FEMS Oil Company Limited, 2nd Ridge, Cape Coast in the Region and within the jurisdiction of this court, you dishonestly appropriated a concrete mixture machine valued GH¢80,000 the property of Fems Oil Company.
The accused denied the charges and claimed that the cement mixture machine was sold to him by two men. Having denied the charge, the burden fell on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. Prosecution’s duty in criminal cases is well defined. Section 15(a) of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 makes it clear that the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused persons lies on the prosecution. In Gligah & another v The Republic 2010 SCGLR 870, the Supreme Court explained that
“…whenever an accused person is arraigned before any court in any criminal trial, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.”
Section 11 (2) of NRCD 323 reads:
“In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to a fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Failure to lead cogent evidence that establishes the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt will lead to the acquittal of the accused person. In the case of Banousin v The Republic, an appeal heard by the supreme Court of Ghana, Dotse JSC as he was then explained reasonable doubt in the following words
“What “beyond a reasonable doubt” means is that, the prosecution must overcome all reasonable inferences favouring innocence of the accused. Discharging this burden is a serious business and should not be taken lightly. The doubts that must be resolved in favour of the accused must be based on the evidence, in other words, the prosecution should not be called upon to disprove all imaginary explanations that established the innocence of the accused”
See also the cases of Amartey v The State [1964] GLR 256
Frimpong v The Republic 2012 1 SCGLR297
Now to the substantive case, the main facts are not disputed that on the 13th of November 2022, the accused person caused a
AI Generated Summary
HER HONOUR MRS VERONIQUE PRABA TETTEH (MRS) convicted Kwame Asamoah, a 35‑year‑old steel bender, of stealing under section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act after concluding that the prosecution proved dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt. On 13 November 2022, Asamoah arranged for a concrete mixing machine valued at GH¢80,000 to be transported from FEMS Oil Company Limited’s Cape Coast site to Kasoa. Ownership of the machine by FEMS Oil Ghana Limited and Asamoah’s appropriation were not in dispute. Asamoah, unrepresented by counsel, claimed he purchased the machine from two unidentified men at the site, but he produced no corroborating evidence of the sale, such as testimony from the driver who carted the machine or any documentation. Applying the Evidence Act (NRCD 323) and Supreme Court authorities on burden and reasonable doubt, the court found that the prosecution had overcome reasonable inferences favoring innocence. The machine was recovered; considering first‑offender status, the court imposed a lenient sentence.