Republic v Ababio (EAS/AO/DC/B7/28/2026) [2026] GHADC 23 (29 July 2026)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT AKIM ODA IN THE EASTERN REGION ON 29TH JULY 2026 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP BENJAMIN BENNET ATTABRA, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. EAS/AO/DC/B7/28/2026 TIME 08: 30AM THE REPUBLIC VRS. EMMANUEL ASARE ABABIO Accused ……………………. Present Detective Chief Inspector Heritage Ahiaku for prosecution ….Present By Court; JUDGMENT Accused was presented to court on 25th July 2025 on a charge of stealing contrary to section 124(1) of Act 1960, Act 29 as amended by paragraph 4 of NLCD 398/1969. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge thereby necessitating full scale trial. The case for the prosecution w as that complainant Amaning Michael is a driver and resident of Manso. Accused is also a Carpenter and residing at the same village. On the 21/03/2026 between the hours of 8: 00am and 9: 00am the complainant hired a Royal Motor Bike at Manso to go to Atiakam Nkwanta to buy Cow meat for a meal. Whilst on his way, he met the accused by the road side and he stopped him and asked his where he was heading to? The complainant said he was going to Atiakama Nkwanta. Accused said he was going to the same town and requested to join him. Complai nant agreed to lift to the place but since the accused is an experienced rider he should take charge of the motor.as he be a pillion rider. On reaching Atiakama Nkwanta , the Complainant alighted and went to buy the meat leaving the motor an d it’s ignition key with the accused. The Complainant returned in a few minutes later and could not find the accused and the motor bike. Efforts were made to trace the accused and the motor proved futile and so he formally lodged complaint with the Police. On 5/5/2026, the acc used was arrested at Atiakama Nkwanta and handed over to Manso Police. Accused was re -arrested and cautioned. Accused admitted in his cautioned statement stealing the motor bike and rode it to Asamankese and sold it to a young man who se name is unknown to him at GH¢3500.00and he received GH ¢500.00 as part -payment from the young man. On 6/5/2026 the accused in the company of the police went to Asamankese to trace the said man but was not seen. The accused was later charged for court. The defence of the accused was that, about two months ago, at about 9:00 am, he and complainant went to Atiakama Nkwanta. When we they got there, Complainant left the motor bike in his care and went to buy tramadol. That immediately complainant left and entered the store, he also rode the motor bike away without telling him anything. He did not go back to Manso, because his uncle Daniel whom he had stolen his Techno Camon 40pro max and sold it in Accra would like to arrest him. In view of that, he rode the said motor bike to Asamankese and sold it to a man he can identify when seen at a price of GH¢¢3500.00. T he dishonestly rece iver gave him part -payment of GH ¢500.00 leaving GH¢3000.00 to be collected at a later date. Accused in his cautioned statement admitted committing the offence levelled against him but I pleaded for mercy. Issue for determination is whether or not prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused indeed stole the Royal Motor Bike from the complainant farm? During the course of the trial, the prosecution called two witnesses. The first witness f or prosecution (PW1 ) Mr. Amaning Michael . The second witness for prosecution (PW2 ) Detective Chief Inspector Alex Antwi to prove its case. But the accused after testifying did not call any witness. The court found as a fact that on the day of the incident accused accompanied the on a rented motor bike to Atiakama Nkwanta to do purchase an item. Whether tramadol or meat the purpose of going there was to make purchases. Complainant left the Motor bike in the care and control of the Accused as he alighted to do the purchase. Few minutes later, complainant only came to meet his absence. The offence of stealing is created under section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29 reads. Whoever steals shall be guilty of a second degree felony. Section 125 states; “A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates a thing of which he is not the owner”. As to what constitute the essential ingredients of the offence, proof of which lies on the prosecution and which will amount to the commission of the offence and therefore the guilt of the accused, the law is epitomised in one of the cases on the subject. That was the case of HALM vrs. AYEH KUMI, court of Appeal, dated 7th August, 1968, unreported; but digested in 1969 Current Case paragraph 155. Amissah J.A. observed in that case that: “For the offence of stealing to be constituted, therefore the relations, acts and intention to be proved in connection with the thing are: (i) That the person charged must not be the owner of it. (ii) That he must have appropriate it and (iii) That the appropriation must have been dishonest. Writing on the dishonest appropriation as a whole but with particular reference to intent to defraud. Mr. Justice P.K Twumasi stated in his Criminal law in Ghana page 313 that: “In other words in a charge of stealing there must be evidence that the accused when appropriating the thing had an intent to cause some economical loss to the owner thereof whether certain or uncertain”. In criminal trials, the onus is always on the on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt however minute in the prosecutions’ case inures to the benefit of the accused person. There is a plethora of authorities in support of this legal position, including the celebrated case of Woolmington Vrs. The director of Public Prosecution, (19350 Ac 462. In the case of Donkor Vsr . The Republic (19740) GLR 254 @ 258, which is now captured in section 13 (1) of the Evidence Decree, NRCD 323, and I quote “in any civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion, as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue re quires proof, beyond reasonable doubt”, In the case of John Brown Akosa Vrs . C.O.P (1950) 12 W.A.C.A.43. The learned judge did state that “ the law is well settle that there is no burden on the accused, if there is any burden at all on the accused, it is not to prove anything but to raise a reasonable doubt. If the accused can raise only a reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. In the instant case, during the course of th e investigations Police took the accused to Asamankese where he allegedly sent the motor for sale as same was recovered from Police Asamankese. Accused in his defense contended he bolted with the motor to avoid his uncle whom he has stolen his mobile phone. The question that readily comes to mind is; if the purpose of avoiding his uncle to get him arrested for the wrong or the offence committed, why should he offer the motor bike for sale? The answer to me is to deny the owner the use of it. Accused could not raise a reasonable doubt to linger the mind of the court. Having gone through the full scale trial of the case, accused was to render an explanation to linger the mind of the court that he did not commit the offence. The evidence before me is overwhelming. Accused convicted on the evidence adduced before the cour t that prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act of steali ng. That the Royal Motor Bike was stolen from the Complainant was done by the accused. Accused is hereby convicted on the charge of stealing. The court enquired as to whether the prosecution is known? Prosecutor intimated the accused was sentenced for a similar offence five months ago by the court. Accused is hereby sentenced to a term of 48 months imprisonment without an option of a fine. The reason for the sentence is to serve as deterrent to would be perpetrators to desist from the act. Let the Royal Motor Bike retrieved be restored the owner forthwith. SIGN; BENJAMIN B. ATTABRA DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 29 – 07 – 2026