The accused person herein and two others (now at large) have been charged on one count of Robbery contrary to section 149 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960, Act 29. He pleaded not guilty, thus, necessitating the instant trial.

What has led to this case? Dominic Obiri Yeboah alias Kennedy who had previously engaged the services of the Complainant (taxi driver) exchanged phone numbers with him for future business transactions. Thus, on 13/09/2014 at about 10pm, the accused is said to have requested the complainant's services to drive him and two others from Kronum Otumfour to Akom. The accused directed the complainant to make a left turn towards the Akom township. On the way, one of the accused persons (now at large) drew a knife and ordered the complainant to stop. He obliged and stopped. The accused person and his accomplices pulled the complainant from his taxi cab, collected the ignition key, his mobile phone and sped off. The complainant reported the incident to the police at the axle weight office and they in turn relayed the information to the Police patrol Team at Offinso. The patrol team eventually intercepted the taxi cab in question at Abofour camp on the Offinso/Techiman Highway and managed to arrest the accused but his accomplices escaped. Four mobile phones including that of the complainant were found on the accused person. In his caution statement, the accused is said to have admitted having planned with his two accomplices to rob the complainant of his taxi cab with registration number AW 5755 - 14.

The ingredients of the offence of robbery can be found in section 150 of Act 29 thus:

Section 150:

" A person who steals a things is guilty of robbery if and for the purpose of stealing he uses force or causes harm to any other person, or if he uses a threat or criminal assault or harm to any other person, with intent to prevent or overcome the          resistance of the other person to the stealing of the thing".

To secure a conviction, the prosecution is enjoined by sections 11(2) and 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 N.R.C.D. 323 to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

In discharging this onerous burden, the prosecution called five witnesses. The first to testify was the driver of the taxi cab in issue who gave his name as Opoku Mensah. PW1 testified that on 10/09/2014, which was a Wednesday, A1 engaged his services to drive him to his house at Kronum Aboahia, Kumasi. In the course of the trip, PW1 said A1 told him that he works at Tarkwa mines and they exchanged phone numbers so that A1 could call for his services as needed. PW1 continued that in the morning of 13/09/14, A1 phoned him and said he was at Obuase and that on his arrival, he will need his services, i.e. to drive him to his house in the taxi. On that day, PW1 said A1 called him four times till 9pm and directed him to the place where he had sent him on 10/09/14. Continuing, PW1 said when he got to the Angel Cream Factory at about 9:30pm to 10:00pm, he met A1 in the company of two others and he was surprised. A1 sat on the front passenger seat whilst the others sat on the back seat and A1 requested him to send them to Akom to visit his sick grandparent . At about a few metres to Akom, A1 instructed PW1 to branch left which he did. PW1 testified further that A1 instructed him to stop by a house which had lights and after he had obliged him, A1 ordered him to come out of the taxi cab. At that point, one of the men who sat on the back seat held PW1's neck and said he would slap him if he did not give him the keys. A1 came to search PW1 and took his mobile phone and money. The said mobile phone which was later retrieved from A1 was admitted in evidence as exhibit A. PW1 indicated that the one who held his neck demanded for the car key but he told him the key was in the car. That person pushed PW1 into a nearby bush and the three men sped off with the car. As he watched his attackers move away with their booty, PW1 said he realized from the indicator light that the accused persons were going in the direction of Offinso. Thus, he immediately rushed to the main road and met some men who directed him to a nearby Customs office where he met a female officer. The Female Customs Officer re-directed him to the Axle Weight office where he reported the incident to the police at post. PW1 continued that the Police took the particulars of the car and he was asked to wait. About 1^1/2 to 2 hours later, the police told him the car had been found at Akom near Abofour forest. The Police escorted PW1 to the location where PW1 identified the car and A1 but two tires had been deflated. With the help of the police, the car was towed from the bush, the tires were changed and he drove the taxi to the Offinso police Station. A photograph of the taxi cab was admitted in evidence as exhibit B. Counsel for A1 subjected PW1 to a long and winding cross-examination. Counsel sought to establish that since the usual closing time for PW1 is between 7pm and 8pm, he could not have picked up A1 and others at a later time. In response to these line of questioning, PW1 told the court that he could work beyond the usual closing hours when the need arises. Counsel also bombarded PW1 with questions to show that there was no link between PW1 and the phone retrieved from A1 ( exhibit A). To this question, PW1 said he bought the phone a long time ago and could not trace the documents covering the same. The explanation offered by PW1 is very reasonable.

The star witness for the prosecution (PW2) was General Sergeant Vickar who was on Patrol duties in the Offinso Municipality on the day in question. Having received a call from Lance Corporal Kporgbe in respect of PW1's taxi cab which had been snatched at Akom, PW2 said his team was on the lookout for this vehicle. Some minutes later, PW2 said they spotted the taxi cab approaching on the Kumasi-Techiman Highway, precisely at Kayera town. The driver ignored signals from the police to stop so the police pursued the car with their service vehicle. The driver prevented the police from overtaking the vehicle and this compelled PW2 to shoot at the rear right tire. PW2 said whilst the vehicle was in motion, he saw the back right door open and A1 jumped out . PW2 and his team pulled over and apprehended him. The driver lost control of the taxi cab and veered into a nearby bush. By the time the police got there, the occupants had escaped. PW2 and his team searched for these men but it was very dark in the bush so they could not be found. PW2 also corroborated the evidence of PW1 that four mobile phones, including that of PW1 were found on A1 upon his arrest. General Constable Sewornu Christian ( PW3) was among the patrol team that arrested A1 and he also corroborated the entire testimony of PW2. Again, the long and winding cross-examination by counsel for A1 could not discredit the testimonies of PW2 and PW3.

According to the prosecution, initial investigations started from Offinso Police Station where the patrol team had handed over A1 and the taxi cab. The investigator detailed to investigate the case testified as PW4. In his evidence, he narrated the same story told by the other prosecution witnesses culminating in the arrest of A1. At the police station, PW4 said PW1 identified his mobile phone among the phones retrieved from A1. A1 was re-arrested and he volunteered an investigation cautioned statement which was admitted in evidence as exhibit C. PW4 further testified that together with the arresting officers, A1 and PW1, they went to the spot where A1 jumped out of the moving taxi cab and also the spot where the vehicle veered into the bush. After the initial investigations, PW4 said he complied with orders from his superior officer to hand over A1 to the Regional Police CID.

The fifth prosecution witness (PW 5) was Detective Inspector Eric Ofori of the Regional CID, Kumasi and he testified that he took over the investigations from PW4. As part of his evidence, he tendered the other three mobile phones retrieved from A1 and the same were admitted in evidence as exhibits D, E and F. PW5 said he forwarded he docket to the Attorney General's Office for advice and he tendered the advice in evidence as exhibit G. Upon the Attorney General's advice, PW5 said he charged A1 and he volunteered a statement which was he tendered in evidence as exhibit H.

In exhibit C, A1 admitted that he was in the car from the point where one Kennedy allegedly snatched it from PW1 to the point where the police shot at the vehicle and that when he regained consciousness, he was at the police Station. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that A1 was the mastermind of the act and played a leading role until one of the accused persons forcibly took the vehicle in issue. The evidence shows that A1 had previously dealt with PW1 and so PW1 could identify him and he did identify him up to the point of A1's arrest. Since A1 had rented the vehicle and knew exactly where he wanted PW1 to take him, another person could not have been giving directions to PW1 as alleged by A1 in exhibit C. This, coupled with the evidence of A1 that he stopped the police vehicle for a "free ride" on the day in question, demonstrate that A1 is not worthy of credit. After the detailed evidence of PW2 and PW3, how could A1 say that the police offered him a free ride in their vehicle on the day in question and in the process took him to the Offinso Police Station? The explanation given by A1 does not accord with right reasoning! Exhibit C was taken on 14/09/2014. Yet, A1 relied on the same statement on 25/02/2015 when he gave his charge cautioned statement. I see the explanation and defence put up by A1 as an attempt to twist the facts and make a false story out of the truth so as to gain his freedom! Counsel for A1 in his various lines of cross-examination also sought to portray that there are inconsistencies in the accounts of the prosecution witnesses as regards the point where the police patrol team sighted the taxi cab and eventually arrested A1. Can these inure to the benefit of A1? Counsel failed to advert his mind to the fact that the patrol team is not always stationery as the name suggests and the evidence indicates that as soon as they sighted the taxi cab, they pursued it. Obviously, there will be slight variations in the account of the eye witnesses but all the villages they mentioned are close to each other. And, I do not think that these inconsistencies alone can whittle away the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

A case in point is Sarkodie v F.K. A. Co. Ltd ( 2009) SCGLR 65 at page 71 where the Supreme Court, speaking through Georgina Wood CJ' affirmed her earlier statement in Effisah v Ansah ( 2005-2006)

SCGLR 943 thus:

In the real world, evidence led at any trial which turned principally on issues of facts, and involving a fair number of witnesses, would not be entirely free from inconsistencies, conflicts or contradictions and the like. In evaluating the evidence led at a trial, the presence of such matters per se, should not justify a wholesale rejection of the evidence to which they might relate. Thus, in any given case, minor, immaterial, insignificant or non-critical inconsistencies must not be dwelt upon to deny justice to a party who had substantially discharged his or her burden of persuasion. Where inconsistencies or conflicts in the evidence were clearly reconcilable and there was a critical mass of evidence or corroborative evidence on crucial or vital matters, the court would be right to gloss over those inconsistencies."

In the instant case therefore, these inconsequential inconsistencies complained of cannot in any way diminish the substance of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. A1 did not only look on as his accomplice held onto the neck of PW1. He searched him and took away his mobile phone and money. Even though no money was found on A1 at the time of his arrest, I believe the story of PW1 that A1 searched his pocket and took away his daily sales. At this time, PW1 had been put in a state of fear. Somebody was at his throat! He could have died from choking! In the midst of all these, A1 searched him for what he could find. The value of the items taken from PW1 without his consent does not matter at this point. What is of the essence is that it was the use of force which aided A1 to take away the mobile phone and the three men sped off with the taxi cab. A1 cannot extricate himself from the entire transaction from the time he phoned PW1 to request for his services to the point where he instructed him to stop and the vehicle was eventually snatched from PW1. Indeed, this was a well planned robbery which A1 and the others executed in grand style but luck was not on his side!

From the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, the following facts have been established beyond reasonable doubt: That in the night of 13/09/2014, A1 who paraded himself as a mines worker lured PW1 from Kronum to Akom under the guise of renting his taxi cab to Akom; that A1 who had called for the taxi boarded the same with two men ( A2 and A3) who are now at large; that A1 being the master mind directed PW1 as to where to go and succeeded in bringing the car to a stop whereupon one of the men in the car held onto PW1's neck; that A1 searched PW1 and took away his mobile phone and the phone was found on A1 upon his arrest ; that the man who held onto PW1's neck sped off with the taxi cab in issue whilst A1 and the third person enjoyed the 'jolly ride'; that the vehicle which the police patrol team shot at and out of which A1 jumped is the same taxi cab which A1 and two others forcibly took from PW1 on the day in question.

A1 whose evidence in court is nothing but a pack of lies has not been able to raise any reasonable doubt as to his guilt. On record, he is a teacher and one would have expected him to call a witness to testify as to his good character. Yet, he failed to call a single witness to testify on his behalf. If indeed he is a teacher as he alleges, then he is a BIG DISGRACE to the NOBLE TEACHING PROFESSION!

The prosecution has been able to discharge their legal burden of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in this case. A1 is found guilty of the offence of Robbery under section 149 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960, Act 29 and he is accordingly convicted.

SENTENCE.

A1 is twenty-five (25) years old. There is no evidence of his prior conviction for a similar offence. Even though the robbery was craftily planned and executed, the victim did not sustain any injury. The taxi cab and the victim's mobile phone have also been retrieved. Again, no offensive weapon was used in the robbery. Taking these mitigating factors into consideration and in consonance with the Ghana Sentencing Guidelines, A1 is sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment with hard labour. I believe this sentence is long enough to punish him and short enough to reform him.

I order that the Complainant's mobile phone be released to him forthwith.