Conviction for
receiving-Another accused
pleaded Guilty to the
Stealing-Question of nexus
between stolen articles and
those found in accused's
possession-No identification
of articles sections
27, 29
and
43
of Criminal Code-Was
evidence of circumstances of
receiving sufficient proof
that goods were stolen
without other evidence of
theft?-
Held: Evidence sufficient,
appeal di8Jlli88ed.
There is no need to set out,
the facts.
Cases referred to: '-
Re.T v. Sbarra
(13 Cr. App. Rep. 118).
Re.T v. /!'uschillo (27
Cr .. App. Rep. 193).
A. Ridehalgh
for Crown.
A. S. E. Brown
for Appellant.
The following joint judgment
was delivered:-
KINGDON, C. J., NIGERIA,
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST
AND GRAHAM PAUL, C. J.,
SIERRA LEONE.
In this case the Appellant
was charged in the Supreme
Court at the Kumasi AS8i~es
with three other men on two
counts, the first. being ",
Burglary" contrary to
section
291 of the Criminal Code, of
which the particulars given
were that the four men in
the night unlawfully broke
the dwelling, house of H.
J.' N. Chapman for .the
purpose of stealing, and the
second "Stealing from a
dwelling house" contrary to
section 271 (2) of the
Criminal Code, of which the
particulars given were that
the four men stole from or
in the dwelling house of H.
J. N. Chapman a number of
articles including one
bottle of whisky and one tin
skipper sardines the
property of the said H. J.
N. Chapman. In the Court
below the appel41nt was the
third defendant. The first
defendant pleaded " Guilty"
to both counts, the other
three including the
appellant, " Not Guilty ".
The appellant was found "
Not Guilty " on the first
and second counts but"
Guilty of receiving the
articles found " in his
possession knowing them to
have been stolen property ",
the articles in question
being one bottle of whisky
and one tin
pg 110
skipper sardines. He was
sentenced to two years
Imprisonment Hard Labour.
Against that conviction he
has appealed to thi~ Court
on the ground of error in
law and has given four heads
of alleged error, but only
the first two need be
considered; they are:-
" (a)
It was not proved that the
bottle of Black and White
Whisky " and a tin of
Skipper Sardines alleged to
have been found on the
"appellant were stolen from
the complainant. Neither the
"complainant nor his
witnesses gave evidence that
Skipper Sardines "were
stolen from the Bungalow
and- the bottle of Black and
White " Whisky was not
identified as the whisky
alleged to be stolen.
" (b)
The appellant was not
charged with receiving on
the Information and the
evidence as adduced do not
support the conviction. ,i
There was no evidence
showing j(' nexus between
the whisky which the "1st
accused by his plea admitted
stealing and that found in
the " possession of the
appellant." .
In regard to the first
sentence of (11) the
conviction for " receiving"
on a charge of stealing is
in order by virtue of the
provisions of section
143 of the Criminal
procedure Ordinance (Chapter
10) provided that the
evidence is sufficient to
support it.
The evidence in regard to
the two articles in respect
of whicJ1 the appellant was
convicted must be considered
separately.
First as to the bottle of
whisky. It was proved that a
bottle of Black and White
Whisky was stolen from Mr
Chapman's store and that a
bottle of Black and white
whisky was found in the
appellant's house. Mr
Chapman's steward-boy, Yaw
Badu, professed to identify
the bottle found in
appellant's house as the
stolen bottle by its
crumpled label. But in this
Court counsel for the Crown
admitted that the learned-
trial 'Judge rejected this
identification, and on our
referring to the Judge, he,
in effect, Confirms this. We
have, therefore, carefully
examined the evidence to
ascertain if there is any
other evidence identifying
the bottle of whisky found
as the bottle stolen, and we
find that there is none.
As to the tin of sardines,
although it was proved that
Mr Chapman's store contained
tins of sardines, it was not
proved that any of them were
stolen. Therefore no
question of identification
-guises. It. is true that
the first defendant pleaded
" Guilty" to .stealing,
inter alia,
one tin of skipper sardines,
but such admission is not
evidence against the
appellant to establish the
theft.
It is clear, therefore, that
neither of the articles for
the receiving of which the
appellant was convicted was
identified as articles
stolen from Mr Chapman's
store. But the conviction,
and the Crown case to uphold
it, do not depend on such
identification. In his
report the learned trial
Judge has recorded:-
" I held, as I explained in
detail at the time, that the
necessary~ "proof according
to the provisions of
sections 27, 29 and 43 of
the II Criminal Code, that
the bottle of whisky found
in appellant's "possession
was appropriate dishonestly
or by any crime, was
"established by the peculiar
circumstances of the case,
bearing in mind " the
principle that the
circumstances in which the
defendant' received' " the
goods may, of themselves, be
sufficient proof that the
goods were " stolen and that
it is not a rule of law that
there must be other evidence
and counsel for the Crown in
this Court has submitted to
us that and apart from
identification there was
evidence to be considered by
the Judge upon which he
could properly convict, and
that all the .. surrounding
circumstances must be
pg 111
looked at.
As to this it is undoubtedly
good law that on a charge of
dishonestly receiving
property knowing it to have
been stolen, it is not
essential to prove the
identity of the property
with property the proceeds
of a particular theft, and
that the necessary guilty
knowledge may be inferred
from all the circumstances
of the case. (Rex v. Sbarra,
13 Cr. App. Rep. 118; Rex v.
Fuschillo, 27 Cr. App. Rep.
193). And Fuschillo's case
seems to indicate that it is
not necessary that the only
possible inference to be
drawn from the facts should
be that the property was
stolen property to the
knowledge of the defendant,
but that where that
inference is one of several
which can possibly be made
it is for the jury (if the
case was tried with a jury)
to draw the inference which
appears to them to be
correct and give a verdict
accordingly. In the present
case there was no jury and
so the duty of drawing an
inference fell upon the
trial Judge. The only
question for this Court is
whether or not there was
evidence upon which he could
properly draw the inference
which he did, viz. that the
bottle of whisky and the tin
of sardines were stolen
property and that third
defendant knew it. The
evidence upon which the
Judge could base the
necessary inference was:-
(a)
The respective places in
which the bottle of whisky
and the tin of sardines were
found in the defendant's
house-- . the whisky under
one of the petrol cases on
which a man named Martin had
been sleeping, the sardines
on a window sill where there
were many books " after the
books were removed". 'l'he
suggestion of the
prosecution is that both the
whisky and the sardines were
hidden; if that suggestion
is accepted it can be
construed as evidence of
guilty knowledge.
(b)
Sub-Inspector of Police
Ofori Addo gave evidence
that when the defendant was
arrnted, cautioned and asked
to account for the whisky he
said, " I bought it a month
ago " from the U .A.C. store
No.2 at Sunyani-I bought it
for " the ceremony because I
was going to marry a girl",
whereas the following
morning he said, " I was
afraid last " night and so I
said I bought the whisky
from the U .A.C. " store
No.2; that is not true. I
picked it up at the place
where I found the sardines".
If this evidence is
pg 112
believed, it shows
that appellant gave two
different versions of how he
came by the whisky; one must
be untrue; and this of
itself affords evidence of
guilty knowledge ..
(c)
The defendant called no
evidence to support his
statement that he bought the
whisky from the United
Africa Company, which if it
were true should have been
easy of corroboration. If,
therefore, the other
alternative is accepted
namely that he found the
whisky at the same place as
the sardines (in a bush
path), the circumstances of
the acquisition may be
regarded as so suspicious as
to imply guilty knowledge.
(d)
The same applies to the tin
of sardines which defendant
says " I found in the road
".
In the aggregate this may
not amount to very much, but
it is certainly sufficient,
and that being so we are
unable to say that the
learned trial Judge was
wrong in his finding that
the appellant was guilty of
receiving these articles
knowing them to have been
stolen property.
'The appeal is dismissed.