Facts
The appellant was charged with and convicted of murder. In convicting, the trial judge relied on a dying declaration in which the deceased persistently implicated the appellant as his assailant. He also relied on identification evidence which was not corroborated. The high court decision was attacked on appeal.
Held: (i) The deceased's persistence in implicating the appellant was mere evidence of consistency and honesty but not of correctness.
(ii) in the circumstances of this case the deceased could have been honestly mistaken in his belief that it was the appellant who shot at him.
(iii) since the conditions of identification were not ideal it was unsafe to convict in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Case Information
Appeal allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment