By: Audrey Raymonda John
Gibrilla Sesay, alias Akuna, a labourer, along with 30-year-old Abubakar Barrie, made another appearance before Magistrate Sahr Kekura at Pademba Road Court No. 1 in Freetown on charges of *Burglary and Larceny, contrary to Section 25(1) and 13(a) of the Larceny Act of 1916, and **Receiving Stolen Goods*, contrary to Section 33(1) of the Larceny Act of 1965.
According to the particulars of the offence, on Monday, 9th September 2024, at No. 105 SS Camp, Regent Village in the Mountain Rural District, Western Area, Freetown, with intent to steal, the accused broke and entered into the dwelling house of one Gibrilla Kamara and stole a black computer laptop, two Apple iPads, and other assorted items, with a total value of Le29,950 property of the said Gibrilla Kamara.
The second count alleges that on the same date and at the same address, the second accused, Abubakar Barrie, received the stolen items, including the black laptop and two iPads.
When the charges were read and explained, no plea was taken from either accused.
Prosecuting the matter, Inspector Kadie Taylor led three witnesses. Following the testimony, the case file was withdrawn for ruling.
In delivering his judgment, Magistrate Kekura noted that the prosecution, in an attempt to establish its case, called three witnesses, including the formal witness who tendered several exhibits. The first accused, Gibrilla Sesay, did not cross-examine the witnesses. However, lawyer A.K. Turay, representing the second accused, cross-examined them on his behalf.
Magistrate Kekura clarified that it is the duty of the court to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused to the High Court for trial under Section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 32 of 1965. If the evidence is insufficient, the accused must be discharged under Section 118 of the same Act.
He stated that the first accused, in his statement to the police, admitted the allegations against him, while the second accused denied them. Importantly, there was no exhibit or corroborative evidence presented in court to prove that the second accused received any stolen items. Both prosecution witnesses confirmed that the second accused’s premises were searched on the day of the incident, and nothing of police interest was found.
Magistrate Kekura further emphasized that in criminal law, the statement of a co-accused cannot be solely relied upon to implicate another accused person. While the first accused alleged that he sold the stolen items to the second accused, no independent witness supported this claim.
In conclusion, the magistrate ruled that the prosecution had established sufficient evidence against the first accused, Gibrilla Sesay, to warrant committal to the High Court for trial. However, the evidence against the second accused, Abubakar Barrie, was deemed insufficient. He was therefore discharged pursuant to Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 32 of 1965.
The matter was committed to the High Court for trial, and bail for the first accused continues.