Ibrahim Kamara, 33, a motorbike rider and Abdul Bangura, 23, unemployed made another appearance before Magistrate Sahr Kekura of Pademba Road Court No.1 in Freetown on three count charges to wit conspiracy to commit a felony contrary to law, robbery with violence and assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the offences against the Person Act 1861.

According to the particulars of offence on Tuesday 3rd December 2024 at Will Street in the western area of Freetown conspired together and with other persons unknown to commit a felony to wit robbery with violence.

Count two further stated that on the same date and place the accused persons robbed Aminata Kallon Kamara of one hundred and twenty packets of fried plantain and physical cash of six hundred leones all to the total value of one thousand leones(1,000) and before such robbery did use personal violence on the said Aminata Kallon Kamara.

Count two further stated that on the same date and place the accused persons assaulted Aminata Kallon Kamara in a manner thereby occasioning her actual bodily harm.

When the charges were read and explained to the accused persons, no plea taken.

The prosecutor Assistant Superintendent of Police Ibrahim S Mansaray led three witnesses

Magistrate Kekura in his judgment said the prosecution in proving its case called three witnesses in evidence including the formal witness who tendered various exhibits respectively. The accused herein who was unrepresented did not cross examine all three prosecution witnesses at the close of the prosecution’s case. The accused person’s concerned summary trail pursuant to section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Act No.32 of 1965.

The accused in defending himself and relied on his statement made to the police in every criminal proceedings the ones lies on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt as was held in the case of Woolavington vs D.P.P if there is a doubt that doubt should be resolved in favour of the accused persons the accused persons in his statement made to the police admitted to the allegation that he went to the scene of crime when he heard the complainant shouting thief, thief, that when he went to the scene he met PW1 holding his co-accused. He further stated that he searched his co-accused and removed the mobile phone of the complainant from his pocket and handed it to PW1 and released his Co-accused to a bike rider who later came to the scene of crime.

PW3 who is a factual witness testified that he went out to urinate when he heard quarrelling that when he went to the scene of crime he met PW1 and the co-accused holding each other and the phone was in his hands and questioned why the accused persons was not at the scene of crime and that PW1 alleged that when he took her money he fled the scene of crime.

In view of the fact that the accused persons admitted that he went to the scene of crime and he was positively accused by PW1 that when he took her money he ran away PW3 who is the factual witness said he only met the co-accused at the scene but evidence speaks volume and corroborated the evidence of PW1 that the accused person was at the scene but ran away after he had taken her money. In the light of the foregoing he is convinced that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and was guilty as charged.

The accused person pleaded with the court to tamper justice with mercy but was sentenced to two years six months at the male Correctional facility or pay a fine of three thousand leones because that was the first time he came in conflict with the law before the court.