KORSAH C.J.: With reference to the appeal of Armah against sentence, we are unable to understand why he was given a more severe sentence than Kojo Sisala, who was convicted of both burglary and stealing, while Armah was found not guilty of stealing, and guilty only of receiving. It follows that his defence that he was not concerned with the housebreaking and stealing was accepted and that he was being punished only for receiving.
Further, we find no evidence on record to support the view expressed by the learned judge that Armah appeared to be the only accused person who profited from the night’s operation.
In the circumstances, the more severe sentence passed on Armah was in our view wrong in principle. We therefore substitute a sentence of 3 years I.H.L. for the sentence passed on Armah, and it is directed that that sentence should commence from December 16, 1958 [date of arrest].
We make no reduction of sentence in respect of the first appellant (Kojo Sisala), who was an escort police…