Whether or not kalasu’s pleading guilty to the murder charge was valid.
According to Section 46 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), it explicitly addresses murder as
causing the death of another person with malice aforethought, which includes intent to kill or inflict
grievous bodily harm with reckless indifference to human life. Clearly according to the section above,
for someone to charge of murder, the act must have some characteristics like, act with malice
aforethought, with the intention to cause harm; however kalasu’s act which result in the death of
Tote was clearly without any of the criteria according the criminal and other offender Act's to be
regarded as murder.
Moreover, The fact of the case clearly show that Tote got stabbed in the cause of the scuffle.
According to the oxford dictionary the word scuffle simply means , a short, not very violent fight or
struggle. With the interpretation both can clearly see that what resulted in the death of Tote was a
struggle for the knife Tote himself brought with his personal intention because Kalasu went after his
girl. My lady, I boldly believe that if this explanation was made to my client Kalasu specifically that
Tote got stabbed in the scuffle that explained to him what scuffle was, he wouldn't have plea guilty.
My lady, our Criminal Offences Act (Act 29) being predictable covered the use of force to defend
yourself from unlawful attack. Self-defense according to Section 42 of the Criminal offences Act (29)
state that, the use of force of a person is justified in using reasonable force to protect themselves or
others from harm or the threat of harm. Someone will say My lady, the name Tote has in the
community alone poses threat to anyone who crosses his path, and not talking of him standing
infront of your door with a knife
My lady, someone will ask if you know that person called the hoodlum is standing upfront of your
door with a knife why don't you escape or find a means to withdraw from the attack.
According to the castle doctrine which originates in common law state explicitly that individuals has
no duty or should not retreat from unlawful attack on their own ground (home, workplace).
In the case Kwaku v the republic, the reasoned that per Roger Korsah J, found that the prosecution's
own narrative of the facts revealed an element that could constitute a defence for the appellant,
namely the lack of knowledge that the goods were stolen. That made the initial plea of guilty
equivocal. The learned judge quoted section 159(4) of the Criminal procedure code, 1960 (Act 30),
which mandates the entry of a "not guilty" plea in such circumstances. The failure of the trial court to
adhere to this provision was deemed a significant error. Consequently, the conviction was set aside,
and the retrial was properly ordered.
As established by justice Roger Korsah Abusu implies that if kalasu had a better expansion to his act
that a death that resulted from the struggle trying to defend himself from the unlawful act by the is
regarded as self defense but not murder, he wouldn't have plea guilty. Therefore, the failure of the
court to adhere to the provision in the section 199(4) of the Criminal procedural Code (Act 30) will
result in the deemed as a significant error and consequently make the judgement to be quash.
