The Republic Vrs Amenyo [2022] GHACC 181 (1 December 2022)

IN CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT TARKWA IN WESTERN REGION ON WEDNESDAY, 1ST DECEMBER, 2022, BEFORE HER HONOUR MRS. HATHIA AMA MANU, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. COURT CASE NO. B3/19/21 THE REPUBLIC VRS. CHARLES AMENYO JUDGMENT Accused person – Present. Chief Inspector Faustina Anaman – Present. The accused is charged for causing harm to the complainant contrary to Section 69 of the criminal Act 29/60. The facts attached to the charge sheet are that: FACT: Victim in this case Julius Mensah is a driver working with Western Transport Service Tarkwa whilst accused Charles Amenyo is a security officer of Magnum Force Security Tarkwa and also a phone repairer. During the month of November 2020, victim approached the accused at his phone repairing shop at Teberebe Junction for a second hand phone to buy. Accused agreed and provided victim with a phone at the cost of GH₵100.00 and a battery at the cost of GH₵35.00 all to the total of GH₵135.00. Victim later detected that the phone was not functioning to his expectation and confronted accused about the phone and requested that the battery should be changed. On the 4th day of December 2020 victim went to the accused’s shop and suggested to him to give him another phone to use because of his driving duties with mining companies in Tarkwa. Accused did not agree to that suggestion but in the process victim picked a phone from the shop and this did not go down well with the accused who followed victim with a piece of wood and when he got closer to him, he hit the left leg of the victim with it and he fell down in the process. This attracted others to the scene including the complainant. Victim was therefore rescued and found him not to be able to walk and was rushed to Sam Jonah Hospital Anglogold. Report was later made by two of his co-workers. Victim was later referred to Cape Coast Teaching Hospital for further treatment where he is currently receiving treatment. Accused was later arrested and after investigation, he was charged with the offence and put before this court. In a bid to prove the ingredients of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt, prosecution presented the investigative officer and the complainant as witnesses to prove the ingredients of the offence. The legal requirement ensure on the prosecution by law requires that it is established that the victim was harmed and that the said harm was perpetuated by the accused. Failure to prove any of these ingredients should be to the benefit of the accused person who is legally presumed innocent until proven otherwise. PW1 who was the victim gave evidence that he bought a phone from the accused in November 2020. That the phone which was a second hand phone was giving him issues so he returned it to the accused on 4th December, 2020 to replace the battery. The victim asserts that he asked the accused to let him use another phone in the shop as he needed a phone in other to effectively work. That although accused initially refused he agreed but just as he turned to leave the accused hit his leg with a piece of wood but for the timely intervention of bystanders he would have attached him again. PW1 claimed that he attempted getting up and noticed he could not get up. That he was sent to Sam Jonah Hospital but was later referred to Cape Coast Teaching Hospital. The accused person questioned the victim on whether he did not ask him to put the phone down but he refused. Again the accused put it to PW1 that he was the one who attacked him first and missed then the accused collected the wood from him. Accused further put it to the victim that the injury he suffered was as a result of his fall and not because he was hit with a stick/wood. The accused also asked PW1 the following questions: Q. When you picked the wood what were you going to do with it? A. I did not pick wood I picked another phone and said I will return it if he changes my battery. I put it to you that you picked a stick. I only picked a stick to help me walk after he knocked me down. I put it to you that after taking the phone you threw the stick. It is not true. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Why did you come to my shop to hurt me? A. I went to the shop but not to hurt you. Q. Where did I hit you? A. You hit me in the middle of the street. Q. Why did you not say the incidence did not occur at my shop? A. Q. A. It occurred in the road as there is even a gutter by his shop. I put it to you that you came to strangle me in my shop. It is not true. Q. Why then did you take the phone and run away. A. I did not I just said I will use that until he replaced my battery. During the fight by-standers asked that I give it to him. I put it to you that what you are saying is not right. It is right. Q. A. Prosecution’s next witness was the investigative officer, this witness visited the victim while he was on admission and took his statement. According to PW2, the bone in the leg of the accused was severely fractured and same was stitched. PW2 tendered into evidence photographs of the victim at the hospital, they were marked as Exhibits A series (A, A1 and A2) and Exhibit B. The marked exhibits were admitted without any objection from the accused person. Although Exhibit A series showed the victim in his hospital bed with a bandage and in 2 surgical staples in his left leg, exhibit B was on electronic copy of the victims x-ray on the injured leg and same depicts a severely broken bone. According to PW2 he went to the crime scene and also spoke to some witnesses who gave their statements to aid with the investigative process. PW2 subsequently tendered into evidence Exhibit C series C and C1 which were the investigative caution statement and charged statement of the accused person. Exhibit D series made up of D and D1 were the final Exhibits presented to the court along with PW2’s witness statement. Exhibit D was a statement given by Kojo Anane, the individual who picked up the victim from the scene of the crime and rushed him to the hospital. In the said statement the individual recounted passing by and seeing a gathering of people and upon slowing down he detected that it was the victim his work colleague at Western Transport who was injured. Exhibit D was also a statement from Michael Mawuli De-Souza who stated that he witnessed the fight which led to the accused person picking up a piece of wood and hitting the victim just as he was leaving the accused person’s shop. In studying the evidence presented by PW2 as a whole the court also scrutinised and studied the statement of the accused person, who it is worth noting reported to the police after the incident in a bid to file a complaint of assault against the victim in this case. Clearly this was a statement that the accused made without fear or duress and it is clearly a representation of half of the happenings of that day. In the said statement the accused narrated how the victim knew the phone was faulty but still purchased it and also his sole decision to take another phone despite protest from him. The accused concluded his statement by indicating that in an attempt to hurt him, the victim missed his step and fell. The accused person jumped his narration from when the victim took the phone and went straight to victim attempting to hit him. From the evidence as presented, the court finds that the following facts are undisputed. 1. That the accused person was in a verbal argument with the accused. 2. That the victim got injured during the said argument and that the accused was so infuriated with the victim forcibly taking another phone from his shop that he injured the accused person. This conviction is based on the fact that even the accused admits the victim was in the shop to complain about the phone and while trying to get the accused to either fix or replace same he took another phone from the shop. If the victim/complainant sole aim was to get a new phone why then would he pick up wood and attack the accused person. The evidence of prosecution’s witnesses have all established that the victim was injured as a result of a fall. Satisfied that prosecution has established a prims facia case against the accused person he was directed to open his defence in a bid to prove his innocence by punching holes into the case presented by the prosecution and causing the court to question his guilt. In his defence the accused opted to give evidence under oath and repeated how the victim took his phone from his shop and when he tried to stop him the victim tried hitting him with a piece of wood lying in front of his shop. The accused stated that he was rather rescued from the victim by the passer by and he proceeded to the police station to report the incident but the police rather arrested him. During cross-examination the accused was questioned extensively to dispute the credibility of the evidence he gave. Accused was asked the following question during cross-examination: Q. A. Q. A. There no doubt you sold a home use phone to complainant. Yes that is what he wanted. There is no doubt that victim came to you that the phone is faulty. It is not so, on 4th December, 2020 he came that the phone was faulty. He came that the battery was faulty and he wanted his money. Q. There is no dispute that the complainant wanted to use your phone to call A. Q. A. Q. A. workers and return it in due time. It is not true. I put it to you that it is the genesis of the whole incidence. It is not so. I put it to you that it was at that stage that the victim took your phone. He took my phone without telling me anything. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. I put it to you that same did not go down well with the accused person. Yes my lord. You demanded the victim to return the phone and the victim refused. It is not true. So did the victim give the phone back to you? No he did not give it to me people gave it to me. In your statement you claimed you have a stick you had used to adjust the door. Yes. I put it to you that it was at this stage that you used the stick to hit the victim. It is not so. You agree with me that you were not happy when victim took your phone. Not that I was not happy but he took my phone and I decided to follow him. If you were happy why did you not let him go? It is my personal phone so he cannot take it away. So you were protecting your property at that stage. At that moment I needed my phone. It is never true that victim picked the stick but you the complainant picked it. It is not true. I am putting it to you that you picked the stick and hit the victim. It is not true. You agree with me that there was harm to complainant body. I saw he was not walking well. I put it to you this was due to the fractured leg of the victim. I saw he was not walking well but I do not know if it was fractured. I put it to you that this fracture was as a result of you hitting the complainant. It is not so. Q. Because you knew you had harmed the accused that is why you hurriedly went to Nsuta Police station to report. A. Q. A. I didn’t know about his leg I went to the police station to report what happened. I put it to you that you reported an assault case but refused a medical forms. That time I did not have money for the hospital my wrist was swollen so I treated at home. Q. I am further putting it to you that on 4th December, 2020 you caused harm to the victim by the use of your wood stick. From all that transpired the innocence of the accused has not be made manifest in his evidence all responses during cross-examination. I hereby convict the accused person on the offence of causing harm. Accused is sentenced to pay a fine for 150 penalty unit in default he will serve 5 years imprisonment. Accused is to a compensation of GH₵10,000.00 to the complainant which may be recovered through a civil action. (SGD.) H/H. HATHIA AMA MANU, ESQ. (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) 8