S.S also remained within the logic of her co-accused; that she has not
declared anything about the destruction of property, since she is not the
author of the acts;
S. J, the plaintiff in this case, stated that it was the day after she had beaten
and injured KINDA Armel and after leaving the hospital, she was told by
her children that a crowd of women wanted to see her; that when she went
out to speak to them, they told her that they had come to seek revenge on
KINDA Armel; that to avoid any excesses, she remained holed up in her
house; that from her home, they went to the territorial gendarmerie
brigade, before ransacking her business equipment;
Me OUATTARA Issiaka, counsel for the civil party, pointed out to the Court
that the accused, as witnesses for the assault and battery of KINDA Armel by
his client, had declared that they were the authors of the ransacking of her
property and that their statements were recorded in the judicial intelligence
report in the file; that all the elements constituting the offence they are accused
of have been gathered; that a bailiff's report produced in the file established the
materiality of the acts alleged against the accused; that consequently, it is
appropriate for the court to uphold the civil claims of his client including the
expenses not included in the costs;
In response, the accused declared that the statements referred to by Me
OUATTARA Issiaka were made with the sole aim of covering the acts
committed by the children who were part of the movement of moods of that
day;
On this basis, the debates were closed; the Court reserved the case for
judgement to be handed down the same day, and ruled as follows:
PROCEDURE
1° PROSECUTION
A- CONSTITUTING THE OFFENCE CHARGED AGAINST
OUEDRAOGO
MARIE
MADELEINE,
OUEDRAOGO
KALIZETA, S.S
Whereas Article 622-1 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code stipulates that:
"Anyone who wilfully destroys or seriously damages a movable or
immovable object belonging to another person shall be sentenced to
between 3 (three) months’ and 2 (two) years’ prison term and a fine of
CFAF 250,000 to 1,000,000"; whereas for the offence of wilful
destruction of property to be constituted, there must be a material act of
destruction of a movable or immovable object belonging to another person
and guilty intent;
Whereas in this case, it is common knowledge that movable property,
namely two wooden tables, a drying sheet, a fence and an immovable
property - a fireplace built on a commercial site, all belonging
to S. J were destroyed; whereas it is also common