Republic Vrs Dordunu and Others [2022] GHADC 302 (7 October 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, DZODZE HELD ON FRIDAY THE 7TH OF OCTOBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP NELSON DELASI AWUKU DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. Case No. B1/01/23 THE REPUBLIC VRS MAWULI DORDUNU & 3 OTHERS. JUDGMENT PARTIES COMPLAINANT ABSENT ACCUSED PERSONS PRESENT REPRESENTATION DETECTIVE/CHIEF INSPECTOR HAMID MOHAMMED FOR PROSECUTION PRESENT BACKGROUND The first and second accused persons were arraigned before this Court on charges of Conspiracy to steal contrary to Section 23(1) and 124 and Stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). 1 | P a g e The third and fourth accused persons were charged with abetment of stealing contrary to section 20(1) and 124 and section 148 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). BRIEF FACTS The brief facts as attached by the Prosecution states that the complainant Regina Fiawotso is a 56 years old trader and a resident of Dzodze Ablorme whiles Mawuli Dordunu (A1) and Mawuli Dorkenu (A2) are 19 and 20 years respectively and residents of Torgodo Dzodze. Dora Awuvey (A3) and Mary Akpabli (A4) are siblings and residents of Dzodze Alagbati. The Prosecution stated that on the 29th day of September, 2022 at about 6:00am, one Mawukoenya Apetsi the complainant’s shop keeper went to complainant’s shop situated at Depe around the Dzodze market and detected that the padlocks to the shop were broken. The Prosecution stated that the attendant quickly informed the complainant about the development and upon arrival the complainant noticed that the items kept in the shop were missing. The Prosecution stated that one Korku Dordunu, a security man to a nearby shop approached the complainant and informed her that he heard some breakage in the market and that he could identify the perpetrators. The Prosecution stated that the security man led the complainant to the residence of A1 and A2 were two plastic chairs suspected to be part of the stock from the complainant’s shop were found and recovered. 2 | P a g e The Prosecution stated that, upon arrest A1 denied the offence but A2 admitted same and confessed that A1 was his accomplice. The Prosecution stated that, A1 and A2 led the police to the residence of A3 and A4 where stolen items made up of 22 aluminum basins, 13 pieces of aluminium sauce pans, 2 big metal ladles, 2 metal cooking pots, 2 big tins of Rosa tomato paste, 2 cartons of Tipa tomato paste, quantities of powdered pepper, spouses and curry powder were retrieved from the room of A4. The prosecution stated that A2 in his caution statement admitted to conspiring with A1 to commit the offence and that after stealing the items, they took them to A4 because she had previously bought from them a stolen firewood and asked them to bring her a silver pans if they get any. The prosecution stated that A3 and A4 stated in their respective caution statements that, A1 and A2 brought the items to the residence and left them on the verandah and A4 packed them to her room because it was about to rain and kept same until the police came for a search and retrieved all. PLEA OF ACCUSED PERSONS AND CONVICTION The first and second accused persons pleaded guilty simpliciter to both charges when the particulars of offence were read and interpreted to them in the Ewe language. A1 and A2 were convicted on their own plea after the consequences of the plea of guilty had been explained to them and they still maintained their plea. 3 | P a g e A3 and A4 pleaded guilty with explanation. EXPLANATION BY A3 In her explanation, A3 stated that at about 3:00am on 29th September, 2022 she woke up and to her surprise saw the items mentioned on their veranda and she immediately called A4 to come and have a look. She further stated that A1 and A2 came to their house around 5:00am and informed them that the items were part of a stock they offloaded for someone and that they will be sending them to the owner in the morning. She stated that after helping A4 t prepare her food which was taken out for sale, she travelled to Accra but received a call from A4 later in the evening that the police came to the house together with A1 and A2 to retrieve the items and she was also arrested. A3 stated that she did not abet the offence and did not know the A1 and A2 stole the items and that she was invited by the police and reported upon her return. EXPLANATION BY A4 A4 confirmed the explanation by A3 and stated that she did not abet the offence and was not aware that the items were stolen. RULING Section 20(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 provides that; “A person who directly or indirectly instigates, commands, counsels, procures, solicits or in any other manner purposely aids, facilitates, encourages or promotes whether by a personal act or 4 | P a g e presence or otherwise and who does an act for the purposes of aiding, facilitating, encouraging or promoting the commission of a criminal offence by any other person, whether known or unknown, certain or uncertain, commits a criminal offence of abetting that criminal offence and of abetting the other person in respect of that criminal offence”. Under section 148(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, where a person is proved to have had in his possession or under control, anything which is reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and that person does not give an account to the satisfaction of the Court as to the possession or control, the Court may presume that the thing has been stolen or unlawfully obtained and that person may be convicted of dishonestly receiving in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In Salifu & Another v. the Republic [1974] 2 GLR 291 it was held that, “Where stolen property was found in the possession of an accused an inference of guilt knowledge was warranted by his possession together with the absence of an explanation of that possession. If an explanation was offered that was consistent with innocence or raised some doubt as in the instant case, the accused was entitled to an acquittal and the fact that the accused was negligent or reckless in not realising that the property was stolen was irrelevant”. From the explanations given by A3 and A4, further evidence will have to be adduced before this court to warrant their conviction. A plea of not guilty is therefore entered for both A3 and A4. Prosecution is to file witness statements of witnesses they have to prove the charges against A3 and A4 and cause same to be served on them in addition to the documents they wish to rely on for trial. SENTENCING 5 | P a g e Under section 124(1) of Act 29, a person who steals commits a second degree felony. Per the provisions of section 296(5) of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act,1960 (Act 30), a person convicted for the offence of stealing is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding twenty-five (25) years. However, from the charge sheet submitted by prosecution, A1 is 19 years and A2 also 20 years. Both accused persons are therefore young persons and by the effect of Section 146 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653) should not be detained upon conviction for a period exceeding twenty-four months. The Court on the other hand takes notice of the prevalence of the offence of breaking into and stealing people’s valuables in recent times within the Municipality and the premeditation with which this particular offence was executed. A1 and A2 have confessed before this court in admitting to the offence that they are not first time offenders and have in fact previously stolen and sold to A4 fire woods. Considering the ages of A1 and A2 and the factors as indicated above, the accused persons are sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour on each of the two counts in accordance with section 46 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653). All sentences are to run concurrently. The recovered items are to be restituted to the Complainant Regina Fiawotso. (sgd.) NELSON DELASI AWUKU 6 | P a g e MAGISTRATE 7 | P a g e