The Republic Vrs Owusu [2022] GHADC 114 (14 December 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT SEFWI JUABOSO ON WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP SAMUEL ENTEE JNR ESQ. THE MAGISTRATE CC. NO.: 64/23 THE REPUBLIC VRS. KWASI OWUSU Accused Person Present Detective Chief Inspector Solomon Boatri for the Republic JUDGMENT Accused Person Present Detective Chief Inspector Solomon Boatri for the Republic Present JUDGEMENT The Accused person is charged with the offence of threat of death contrary to Section 75 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The Accused pleaded not guilty. The particulars of the offences are that on 17/09/2022 at Sefwi Boinzan the Accused threatened Janet Appiah with a cutlass with the intent to put her in fear of death. The fact of the case are that the complainant, Janet Appiah, is the Ex- Wife of the Accused but they live in the same house at Sefwi Boinzan and are both farmers. That on 17/09/2022, the complainant returned from farm in the evening at about 9:00 am and 1 | P a g e requested for a broom from her son to sweep her room and the son directed her to where he kept the broom. But as soon as the complainant picked up the broom, the Accused who was then in his room came out and accused the complainant that she was going to use the broom against him spiritually. This led to a misunderstanding during which Accused pulled a cutlass and threatened to butcher the complainant. Their son who was around managed to rescue the complaint and collected the cutlass from the accused. The complainant reported the case to the police at Sefwi Boinzan and accused was arrested, and after police investigation accused was charged with the offence stated on the charge sheet and put before court for prosecution. The prosecution called three witnesses; the complainant, Janet Appiah (PW1), Owusu Amoako Foster (PW2), the son of accused and complainant, and General Lance Corporal Francis Kwaku Asante (PW3) the case investigator to support their case. PW1 narrated that on 17/09/2022 she went to farm and returned home at about 9:00pm and decided to sweep her room before taking her bath. But she could not find the broom so she asked PW2 about it and PW2 showed her where the broom was. That after she picked the broom and was moving towards her room, the accused opened his door and said she had used the broom to perform some spiritual rites against him and pulled a cutlass that he would butcher her. That PW2 who saw the cutlass quickly held accused from behind and pinned him to wall and took the cutlass from him. That the following day she went with the cutlass and reported the accused to the police, and gave her statement to the police. The defence of the Accused is that the complainant was his Ex-Wife whim he divorced on 17/03/2022, but he never threatened to kill her. # The only issue for determination is whether or not Accused threatened to kill the complainant. 2 | P a g e Section 75 of the criminal offences Act 29 under which Accused is charged with the offence of threat of death provides that “A person who threatens any other person with death with intent to put that person in fear of death, commits a second felony.” Section 17 of Act 29 provides the meaning and use of threats. Section 17 (1) (A) provides that threat means “a threat of criminal force or harm. The elements of the offence of threat of death are therefore; 1. That the Accused threatened complainant with death 2. That Accused had the intent to put Complainant in fear of death. The prosecution must therefore prove these elements against Accused beyond reasonable doubt to succeed. Owusu Amoako Foster (PW2) confirmed the evidence of PW1 with a near vibation narration of PW’s evidence. But during the cross examination of PW1and PW2 the Accused denied that he pulled a cutlass to butcher PW1, and put it to them that the cutlass was not even in his room but in the kitchen at that time so in effect he could not have taken any cutlass in his room at the time to threaten to kill PW1. But PW1 and PW2 insisted that the cutlass was in his room and he pulled it to butcher Pw1. In his investigation caution statement to the police which Pw3 tendered in evidence as Exhibit A which Accused relied on it in his charge caution statement, Exhibit B, Accused stated that on 17/09/2022 about 6:00 am I woke up and went to Sefwi Boinzan. On the same day I returned home about 9:30 and did not see anyone in the same house complainant, Janet Appiah, and I were living. I opened my door and slept. I did not wake up again until the next day”. But according to PW2 on the day of the incident PW1 returned from farm around 8:30 pm to 9:00 pm and it was at that period that the Accused returned from town. The Accused asked a certain woman, Auntie Akosi, whether her fire had gone out or not and the lady responded that there was some fire and Accused entered his room. 3 | P a g e During the cross examination of PW2 by Accused the following ensued; Question. What was I going to do with the fire I asked Auntie Akosi About? Answer. I do not know. Question. I put it to you that you and your mother said I was going to cook some Ampesi that was why I asked the lady for some fire Answer. It is not true. The cross-examination above indicated that when accused returned home in the evening of 17/09/2022 he saw both PW1 and PW2. His statement in exhibit ‘A’ that he did not see any one at home could therefore not he correct. Since the accused’s statement in Exhibit A that he did not see anyone at home when he returned from town conflicted with his questions in cross examination of PW2. The court is of view that the Accused’s statement in Exhibit A as stated above was not credible and therefore will not attach any weight to it. See AKOWUAH vs. COMMISIONER OF POLICE [1963] 2 GLR 390 where it was held that where a person’s previous statement to the police was at variance with his evidence in court should evidence should be negligible. Accused saw PW1 and PW2 at home and his return from town so the court is more inclined to accept the corroborated evidence of the PW1 that Accused pulled the cutlass which PW3 put in evidence as Exhibit C, to butcher her. On the evidence therefore I find that accused threatened complainant with death. Again, PW1 in an answer in cross examination said Accused had previously threatened verbally to kill her and kill himself but the matter was settled. However, in the instant case because Accused pulled the cutlass on her that was why she reported her to the police. Accused did not deny that he had threatened to kill PW1 before. Failure to deny a material fact in evidence amount to admission of that fact. (FOR IV. AYIREBI [1966] GLR 627 SC) cited. 4 | P a g e The court therefore accepts the evidence of PW1 that Accused had previously threatened verbally to kill her but the matter was settled. But this time she entertained some fear that Accused could kill her hence her report to the police. In BEHOME V. THE REPUBLIC [1979] GLR 112, the court held that in the offence of threat of death the act would consist in the expectation of the death which the Accused creates in the mind of the person threatened whiles the intent would also consist in the realisation by the Accused that his threats would produce that expectation. In the instant case the evidence showed that Accused pulled the cutlass on PW1 and would have done so, that is, butchered her if not for the timely intervention of PW2. It could therefore be seen that the Accused created the expectation of death in the mind of PW1. And Accused realised that his threat had produced the expectation of death in the mind of PW1, when she reported the matter to the police. So in the teeth of the corroborated evidence of PW2 who was present and acted timeously to avert the butcher Of PW1. Accused still denied that he pulled the cutlass, let alone to butcher her, knowing that the law would deal with him if he confessed. On the evidence before the court therefore I found that the Accused had the intention to put complainant in fear of death. On the evidence again, I find that the prosecution have proved their case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore find that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. Accordingly the accused person is hereby convicted on the offence of threat of death contrary to section.75 of Act 29. Consequently, Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 100 PU or in default 6 months IHL. Accused is further sentenced to sign a bond to be of good behaviour for 2 years or in default 6 months IHL. 5 | P a g e SGD:::SAMUEL ENTEE JNR ESQ THE MAGISTRATE 6 | P a g e