THE REPUBLIC vs SAMUEL IDAN

Two persons were initially arraigned before the court but at the close of prosecution’s case, it is only the accused, Samuel Idan who remains standing before this court for the crime of stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29). The particulars of offence state that the accused on the 28th of November 2020 at Abura, Cape Coast dishonestly appropriated a Toyota Corolla car valued at GH¢50000. The accused denied the offence, placing the burden of establishing his guilt at the feet of prosecutors.

The prosecutors relied on the evidence of the complainant and the police investigator. The testimony of the complainant was that on the 12th of November 2020, the accused approached him to hire his Toyota Corolla for the use of accused’s visitor who was visiting from outside the country. According to the agreement, the accused was to return the car in a week from 15th December 2020. That later again, the accused hired another vehicle from complainant, a Hyundai Electra. That in all the accused paid him GH¢2800 for the vehicle.

After the time for renting the vehicle had elapsed, the accused failed to return the vehicle and also went into hiding. The complainant then made a report to the police and police investigations led to the arrest of the accused person.

The accused person, after his arrest, gave several statements to the police and it is interesting to note that it is based on his statements that the second accused was arrested. The statements given by the accused person as well as the car registration and ownership documents are the exhibits tendered by the prosecution in support of their case.

It is important to state that the complainant in his evidence stated that the accused person had sold the vehicle but no evidence of this fact was offered to prove same beyond this statement. His statement alone cannot be relied on as conclusive proof of the sale of the vehicle, by accused person. The point of contention between the prosecution’s case and that of the accused are whether the accused rented the vehicle of the complainant or whether it was a friend of the accused who rented it. While I do not find that the evidence led leads me to conclusively decide on this issue. That fact does not detract from the evidence that accused at some point was in possession of the Toyota Corolla.

The burden of proof as in almost every criminal case lies on the prosecution. It is no different in this case Section 125 of the Criminal Off