THE STATE v. NIMOH
1960
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- VAN LARE
- GRANVILLE SHARP
- SARKODEE-ADOO JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
1960
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife after a domestic quarrel. He admitted to shooting his wife but claimed provocation due to her alleged infidelity. The court found that the circumstances did not meet the legal requirements for provocation to reduce the charge to manslaughter. Provocation must involve a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, which was not sufficiently evidenced in this case. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and his conviction of murder and sentence to death were upheld.
JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE J.S.C.
Van Lare, J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted upon the charge of murder and sentenced to death before Crabbe, J., sitting at the Assizes holden at Kumasi on the 16th June [p.204] this year. The deceased was the appellant's wife and there is no denial that the killing was the act of the prisoner who according to his own testimony at his trial that after a quarrel, consisting of exchange of abuses and, as may be inferred from the evidence, followed by a fight, he became very angry and entered his room whence he fetched a gun which he fired at his wife thereby causing her death. The actual killing took place in the yard of the house where both the appellant and the deceased lived. There was no eye-witness of the events immediately preceding the killing, but upon the report of a gun-shot a witness who happened to be only a few yards away and heard the deceased scream rushed into the house. The deceased was seen lying in a pool of blood on the ground and the appellant standing not far away from the dead body. When asked what he had done the appellant said "the damage has already been done." Following the usual practice of the village an alarm was raised. Others went to the house and the appellant was tied up and surrendered to the police.
Both in his caution statement to the police and at his trial the appellant explained the reasons for his murderous act. He had cause to believe that the wife had been associating with other men and he had warned her. On the eventful day, following a little misunderstanding between them, the deceased told the appellant that she would continue in her illicit dealings with other men. She referred to the appellant as an ugly person and not fit to be her husband. During the quarrel she told the appellant that she was not a fool to disclose her private dealings with other men. The appellant called the wife a prostitute and a rogue and most probably a scuffle ensued during which the appellant was thrown to the ground. As already indicated the incident took place in the yard. But the appellant, according to him, became so angry that he rushed into his room and fetched the gun. He came out and shot at the wife.
The defence was one of provocation. The learned trial judge adequately summed up to the assessors and as it appears in his judgment on the question of provocation which rightly in our view was rejected. We were unable to find that the circumstances amount to su